i,     i,     i.   A 


•■^Jl 


Digitized  by  tlie  Internet  Arcliive 

in  2008  witli  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.arcli  ive.org/details/episcopacytestedOOonde 


li^  / 


EPISCOPACY 


TESTED    BY    SCRIPTUEE 


EIGHT  EEV.  IIEXRY  U.  OXDERDOXK,  D.  D., 

ASSISTANT    BISUOP  OF  THE  PROTESTANT    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH    IN    THE  COMMON- 
WEALTH   OF    PENNSYLVANIA. 


"To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony." — Isaiah,  vlii.  20. 


NEW   YORK: 

PUBLISHED    BY  THE   PliOT.    EPIS.   TRACT  SOCIETY. 
18G0. 


CONTENTS. 


Paujo. 

Introduction,            ••....•,%.  v 

Trace,  '•  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture,"      .....  1 

Postscript  to  "  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture,"    ....  29 

Ap[)endi\-. — Notes  to  "  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture,"        .         .  37 

Timothy  an  Apostle,      ......„.,  47 

Review  of  "  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture,"         ....  53 

Answer  to  that  Review, 93 

Essay — on  the  Gluestion — When  did  Paul  place  Timothy  over  the 

Church  at  Ephesus  1 114 

Second  Review  of  "  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture,"  &c.,     .         .  130 

Answer  to  tlie  Second  Review,         .......  175 

Review,  from  tlie  Biblical  Repertory,  of  "  Episcopacy  Tested  by 

Scripture," 200 

Answer  to  the  Third  Review 2*29 

Dissertation  on  the  False  Aix)stles  mentioned  in  Scripturo,     .  '267 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


The  Essay,  "  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture,"  had  been  pub- 
lished more  than  three  years,  before  an  attempt  was  made  lo 
reply  to  it.  Early  in  the  year  1834  it  was  reviewed  in  iht; 
"  Quarterly  Christian  Spectator,"  by  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes,  u. 
Pliiladelphia.  This  review  was  immediately  followed  by  an 
answer,  in  the  "Protestant  Episcopalian,"  by  Bishop  H.  U.  Oii- 
derdonk.  Of  this  answer  a  further  review  appeared  in  llie 
periodical  first  mentioned,  in  tJie  spring  of  the  present  year, 
by  the  same  Rev,  Author;  which  was  replied  to  by  Bisiiop 
Onderdoiik  in  the  "Protestant  Episcopalian"  for  June.  For 
the  full  information  of  the  Christian  public,  on  the  subject  ol 
Episcopacy,  so  far  as  these  productions  throw  light  upon  it,  the 
whole  of  them  are  now  republished,  in  order,  the  reviews  and 
replies  from  the  respective  journals,  by  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Tract  Society. 

Another  review  of  "  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture,"  having 
appeared  in  the  "  Biblical  Repertory,"  for  April,  1835,  that  also, 
and  the  reply  of  Bishop  Onderdonk,  are  republished  by  the 
Society. 

Two  short  pieces  on  the  Aposileship  of  Timothy,  from  the 
"  Protestant  Episcopalian,"  are  inserted,  after  the  Tract  and  its 
Appendix,  that  the  whole  of  that  argument  may  likewise  be  before 
the  reader.  A  Dissertation  on  tiie  case  of  the  False  Apostles  is 
appended  at  the  close  of  the  publication. 

kin  ) 


FURTHER   ADVERTISEMENT. 


Siixcii  the  second  reply  to  Mr.  Barnes  was  printed  in  the 
"  Protestant  Episcopalian,"  we  have  observed,  in  turning  casually 
over  the  pages  of  his  little  volume,  that  he  has  there  extracted 
at  large,  what  he  merely  referred  to  in  the  first  edition  of  his  first 
review,  the  argument  of  the  late  Dr.  Wilson,  that  Timothy  was 
placed  at  Ephesus  by  Paul  at  the  time  the  latter  fled  from  that 
city,  in  consequence  of  the  riot  or  "uproar"  mentioned  in 
Acts  XX.  1.  We  did  not  deem  it  necessary  to  answer  a  mere 
reference  to  an  argument  contained  in  a  different  work  from  the 
one  then  before  us.  But  as  the  full  reprint  of  it  may  seem  to 
make  our  reply  incomplete,  particularly  to  the  assertion  of 
Mr.  Barnes,  which  he  of  course  deems  more  fully  illustrated  by 
the  extract  from  Dr.  Wilson,  that  Timothy  was  placed  at  Eplie- 
sus  only  "  temporarily,"  we  refer,  in  return,  to  the  arguments 
of  Macknight,  concerning  the  date  of  the  first  epistle  to  him, 
and  his  connexion  with  the  church  in  that  city.  (See  his  Pre- 
face to  the  Epistle,  sect.  2;  and  Life  of  Paul,  chap,  xi.)  We 
also  ask  the  reader's  attention  to  an  essay  on  the  subject,  from 
the  "  Protestant  Episcopalian,"  for  May,  1831 ;  which  is  here 
reprinted  after  our  answer  to  Mr.  Barnes'  first  review. 

<'^>  H.  U.  O. 


INTRODUCTION. 


In  his  Answer  to  ihe  Review  of  "Episcopacy  Tested  by 
Scripture,"  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Barnes,  the  author  of  that  tract 
affirmed  that  the  presumptive  argument  is  with  the  advocates 
of  Episcopacy,  and  the  burden  of  proof  on  its  opponents.  This 
consideration  is  not  without  weight ;  and,  as  it  was  omitted  in 
the  Tract,  a  statement  of  it  is  here  prefixed. 

By  the  presumptive  argument  is  meant,  a  reason  or  reasons 
for  presuming  a  proposition  to  be  true,  before  the  main  discus- 
sion is  entered  upon.  By  the  burden  of  proof,  so  far  as  it  is  con- 
trasted with  this  argument,  is  meant,  the  necessity  of  refuting  a 
reason  or  reasons  for  pre^wming-, before  commencing  the  decisive 
investigation,  that  a  certain  proposition  is  ztntrue. 

When  it  is  alleged,  as  it  sometimes  is,  that  the  burden  of  proof 
in  this  controversy  lies  on  Episcopalians,  the  only  ground  of  the 
allegation  is,  that  the  claims  of  Episcopacy  displace  all  Non- 
episcopal  ministers,  and  unchurch  all  Non-episcopal  denomina- 
tions. The  latter  consequence  is  disclaimed  by  the  author  of 
the  Tract.  And  cs  to  the  former,  and  indeed  both,  if  both  are 
supposed  to  follow,  they  may  indeed,  as  being  unacceptable  to 
the  feelings,  require  cogent  and  decisive  arguments  for  our 
claims;  but  they  do  not  affect  what  is  logically  called  the  burden 
of  proof.  Because  a  thing  is,  is  no  presumption  that  it  is  right. 
Because  there  are  Non-episcopal  ministers,  is  no  presumption 
tliat  their  ministry  is  valid.  The  comparative  merits  of  Chris- 
tianity and  Mahomedism,  for  example,  are  to  be  discussed ;  if 
Christianity  shall  have  the  better  of  the  argument,  it  will  dis- 
flace  the  latter  religion  and  its  ministers  ;  does  this  consequence 
'-lirow  the  burden  of  proof,  as  distinguished  from  the  argument 
proper,  on  the  former  ?  Surely  not:  because  Mahomedism  and 
Mahomedan  ministers  exist,  is  no  presumption  that  they  have 
truth  on  their  side.  Again:  the  question  between  the  Quakers 
and  those  who  hold  to  an  ordained  ministry  and  visible  sacra- 
ments, is  to  be  discussed  ;  if  the  latter  party  prevail,  they  un- 
church the  former  and  displace  their  ministry ;  but  against  the 

1*  (5) 


VI  INTRODDCTION. 

justice  of  these  consequences  there  is,  for  the  reason  given,  no 
logical  presumption.  So,  when  some  Romanists  deny  our 
ministry;  though  we  have  this  presumptive  argument  against 
them,  that,  as  no  one  civil  ruler  and  government  has  ever  swayed 
the  whole  world,  it  may  be  supposed  that  no  one  ecclesiastical 
ruler  and  government  ought  to  have  dominion  over  all  churches ; 
yet  we  make  no  further  claim  to  throw  on  them  the  burden 
of  proof.  And  our  Non-episcopal  brethren  must  submit  to  the 
same  obvious  rule. 

A  presumptive  argument  for  a  ministry  is,  that  in  all  civil 
society  the  people  have  officers  over  them.  A  similar  presump- 
tive argument  {or Episcopacy  is,  that  in  all  large  civil  societies,  the 
officers  over  the  smaller  portions  of  the  people  have  higher  offi- 
cers over  them.  The  number  of  grades  among  the  officers  may 
vary,  as  expediency  shall  dictate  ;  but  there  is  always  the  feature 
in  civil  governments  of  magnitiule,  that  many  officers,  and 
several  grades  of  them,  have  a  common  head  above  all.  The 
exceptions  to  this  rule  are  few,  if  any,  and  are  of  course  unavail- 
ing in  this  discussion.  We  find  the  same  rule  in  armies,  navies, 
corporations,  colleges,  associations.  Human  wisdom  then,  or 
COMMON  SENSE,  as  indicated  by  almost  invariable  practice, 
declares  for  grades  of  officers,  and  a  chief  grade  superior  to  the 
rest.  And  the  presumptive  argument  is  obviously  on  this  side 
of  the  question  between  clerical  imparity  and  parity;  it  is  in 
favor  of  Episcopacy ;  and  the  burden  of  proof,  whether  that 
proof  be  sought  in  Scripture  or  elsewhere,  is  on  those  who  act  in 
opposition  to  this  all  but  universal  rule. 

Another  presumptive  argument  for  Episcopacy  is,  that  in  the 
ministries  of  all  false  religions,  if  extensively  professed,  there 
are  di-fferent  grades,  with  a  common  superior.  This  feature 
cannot,  without  a  petitio  principii,  be  deemed  one  of  the  errors 
of  these  religions;  nay,  it  is  sanctioned,  as  will  immediately  be 
shown,  by  dispensations  allowed  to  be  from  God.  From  these 
dispensations  was  the  Heathen  and  Mahomedan  imparity  bor 
rowed  ;  or  else  it  was  instituted  in  accordance  with  the  dictates 
of  human  wisdom  and  common  sense.  Take  either  view,  and 
we  have  a  further  presumptive  argument  for  clerical  imparity, 
or  Episcopacy. 

A  third  presumptive  argument  in  our  favor  is  found  in  the 
Patriarchal  Church.  Abraham  was  a  priest,  as  well  as  Melchi- 
sedec :  yet  he  paid  tithes  to  him  ;  which  proves  the  superior 
priestly  rank  of  Melchisedec.    To  the  same  effect,  the  Epistle  to 


INTBODCCTION.  VU 

the  Hebrews  declares  our  Lord  to  be  both  a  "priest"  and  a 
"high-priest"  after  the  order  of  Melchisedec ;  and  there  could 
have  been  no  high-priest  in  that  order  without  inferior  priests. 
Hence  a  third  presumption — and  one  peculiarly  strong,  if  the 
order  of  Melchisedec  be  that  of  the  Christian  ministry — for 
more  than  one  grade  in  the  iatter. 

A  fourth  presumption  is  drawn  from  the  Mosaic  priesthood, 
■which  consisted  of  a  high-priest,  priests  and  Levites,  This  ana- 
logy with  the  three  grades  of  Episcopacy  is  too  obvious  to  need 
amplification. 

We  adduce,  then,  the  almost  universal  voice  of  human  wisdom, 
COMMON  SENSE,  and  the  universal  rule  of  all  widely-spread 
RELIGIONS,  false  and  true,  as  presumptive  arguments  that  when 
our  Saviour  organized  his  ministry  he  would  organize  it  on 
the  principle  of  imparity.  With  this  almost  conclusive  pre- 
sumption in  favor  of  Episcopacy,  let  the  reader  enter  upon  the 
"testing"  of  that  model  of  tlie  sacred  office  by  "Scripture." 
Tliis  presumption  is  so  weighty,  that  nothing  but  perfectly 
clear  and  explicit  passages  against  ministerial  imparity  can 
overturn  it ;  yet  such  passages  there  are  none.  Only  obscure 
texts,  of  doubtful  meaning  at  best,  are  adduced  in  opposition  to 
this  argument,  and  the  claims  of  Episcopacy.  The  whole  clear 
current  of  revealed  evidence  is  Avilh  these  presumptions,  and 
decides  in  favor  of  our  ministry. 

H.  U.  Ondehdonk. 
Philadelphia,  1835. 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE. 


Thb  clnim  ci  rplscopacy  to  r/e  of  d''vnni?  uuti'T-.iv-- 1  mr: 
therefore  obligatory  on  the  "Church,  rests  limdainemaily  or.  (lie 
one  question — has  it  tlie  authority  of  Scripture?  If  it,  has  not, 
it  is  not  necessarily  binding.  If  it  lias,  the  next  and  only  other 
question  is — has  any  different  arran^ment  of  the  sacred  minis- 
try scriptural  authority  1  If  there  be  any  such,  that  also  has 
divine  sanction,  and  must  stand  with  episcopacy.  If,  ho'vever, 
none  such  can  be  found,  then  episcopacy  alons  has  the  counte- 
nance of  the  word  of  God. 

Such  a  statement  of  the  essential  point  of  the  episcopal  con- 
troversy is  entirely  simple;  and  this  one  point  should  be  kept  in 
view  in  every  discussion  of  the  subject ;  no  argument  is  worth 
taking   into   account  that  has   not  a  palpable  bearing  on  the 

clear  and   naKed  topic the  scriptural  evidence  of  episcopacy. 

It  is  easy  indeed  to  make  a  plain  topic  seem  complicated ;  infi- 
delity casts  its  flimsy  shadow  over  the  doctrine  of  a  God  ;  scep- 
ticism weaves  its  webs  about  the  evidence  of  the  senses ;  Socini- 
anism  cannot  discern  in  Scripture  proof  that  the  death  of  Christ 
was  a  proper  atoning  sacrifice;  and  the  same  cavilling  persecu- 
tion attends  almost  all  simple  truths,  and  that  usually  in  propor- 
tion to  their  obviousness,  or  the  facility  of  their  demonstration. 
Episcopacy  does  not  escape  these  inflictions  of  forensic  injustice. 
Its  simple  and  clear  argument  is  obstructed  with  many  extrane- 
ous and  irrelevant  difiiculties,  which,  instead  of  aiding  the  mind 
in  reaching  the  truth  on  that  great  subject,  tend  only  to  divert  it, 
and  occupy  it  with  questions  not  affecting  the  main  issue.  These 
obstructions  we  must  remove,  and  make  ouvse.ves  a  free  and 
unimpeded  course,  if  we  desire  to  go  forward  with  singleness 
of  mind  in  testing  episcopacy  by  Scripture. 

It  will  therefore  be  the  first  object  of  this  essay,  to  point  out 
some  of  these  extraneous  questions  and  difficulties,  and  expose 
either  their  fallacy  or  their  irrelevancy.  The  next  object  will 
be,  to  state  the  scriptural  argument. — Little  or  no  reference  will 
here  be  made  to  the  fathers  ;  not  because  their  testimony  is 
depreciated;  for  it  is  of  paramount  value,  in  showing  how  the 
Scriptures,  connected  with  this  controversy,  were  interpreted  by 
thosf,  who  knew  how  the  apostles  themso.h'os  under? '.ooi'  ♦'•leni. 
IJut  tnc  present  writer  believes  that  Scripture  aione  win  lufiiish 
such  authority  for  episcopacy  as  will  convince  an  unsophisti- 
cated judgment,  and  be  held  obligatory  by  an  unprejudiced 
coiioT.ieriC" 


4  EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE. 

I.  In  order  to  keep  the  judgment  and  the  conscience  tlnis 
clear,  all  e.rlvaneons  considerations  must  be  spt  aside.  To  effec\ 
this  purgation  of  the  argument  is  our  first  object. 

1.  An  objection  or  allegation,  entirely  extraneous  to  scriptur?- 
reasoning,  but  often  made  to  bear  on  tlie  episcopal  controversj 
13 — that  our  ecclesiastical  system  is  inimical  to_/7-ee  civil  goverr 
ment.  We  first  answer  to  this  objection,  that  it  is  irrelevant 
for  if  episcopacy  be  set  forth  in  Scripture,  it  is  the  ordniance  o 
God  ;  of  course,  free  civil  governments  must,  in  that  case,  acced< 
to  its  unqu.-xlified  toleration  ;  and  the  citizens  professing  Chris 
tianity  are  mdividualjy  bound  to  conform  to  it.  No  serious  per 
son  will  set  any  rights  of  man  above  the  will  of  God.  We  nex* 
answer,  that  the  allegation  is  proved  to  be  Ailse  by  experience 
In  this  country,  no  firmer  friends  of  civil  liberty  could  or  can 
be  found,  formerly  or  at  present,  than  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church ;  nor  is  there  any  class  of  men  belonging  to  that  body 
who  are  not  the  friends  of  civil  liberty;  and  in  Great  Britain  the 
same  remark  holds  true,  according  to  the  standard  of  freedom 
there  deemed  constitutional.  But  we  have  a  third  answer — the 
allegation  is  false  in  theory.  No  free  government  need  fear  any 
reputable  denomination,  which  is  not  established,  and  does  not 
intermeddle  with  political  affairs.  Should  any  denomination  be 
tempted  thus  to  intermeddle,  the  re-action  of  the  spirit  of  free 
dom  will  give  it  a  lesson  not  to  be  forgotten  in  a  century.  And 
as  episcopacy  is  more  adverse  than  non-episcopacy  to  setting  in 
motion  popular  currents,  or  to  taking  advantage  of  them,  that 
ecclesiastical  system  is  less  likely  to  fall  into  such  an  error. 
Moreover,  when  we  add  to  this  consideration,  that  all  free 
governments  must  desire,  from  their  very  nature,  to  keep  popu- 
lar influence  and  impulse  to  themselves,  we  may  securely  aflirm, 
that  episcopacy  is  pec?i/mr/y  adapted  to  free  government:  noi 
affecting  mere  popularity,  it  leaves  that  field  of  competition  en 
tirely  to  politicians.  Whatever  be  the  reverence  and  attachment 
felt  towards  our  bishops,  they  can  seldom,  probably  never,  attain 
to  general  notoriety  and  favour  in  any  branch  of  civil  affairs  , 
none  of  them  have  thus  far  sought  any  thing  of  the  kind  ;  out 
of  their  ecclesiastical  sphere,  their  influence,  other  than  pertains 
to  all  virtuous  citizens,  will  ever  be  but  small,  or  harmless,  or 
exceedingly  transient.  An  arbitrary  government  may  indeed 
find  the  case  different.  If  the  people  at  large  are  prostrated  by 
or  to  the  civil  power,  they  may  be  equally  or  more  subservient 
to  ecclesiastical  domination;  in  which  case,  bishops  (like  all  reli- 
gious leaders)  may  sometimes  prove  less  tractable  than  that 
government  desiies.  But  are  not  such  interferences  as  likely  to 
be  favourable  to  the  subject,  and  his  few  rights,  as  against  them? 
And,  whether  this  suggestion  be  granted  or  denied,  the  operation 
of  episcopacy  in  and  on  an  arbitrary  government  is  not  the 
point  before  us. — We  assert  that  the  allegation  that  episcropacy 
is,  in  any  sense,  unfavourable  to  free  civil  government,  is  in- 
correct, both  in  theory  and  in  fact,  and  that  the  whole  objection 


EPISCOPACY  TESTED   BY   SCRIPTCHE.  O 

IS  irrelevant  to  the  inquiry,  Avhether  episcopacy  be  according  to 
the  word  of  God. 

2.  Another  of  these  extraneous  considerations  is — the  com- 
parative standing  in  piety,  as  evinced  by  the  usual  tokens  of 
moral  and  spiritual  character,  of  the  members  respectively  of 
llie  episcopal  and  non-episcopal  Churches.  This  question  is 
highly  iiuporlant  in  itself;  but  it  has  no  bearing  on  the  areumcnt 
for  or  against  episcopacy.  We  have  the  authority  of  our  Sa- 
viour for  the  utter  moral  and  spiritual  Avorthlessncss  of  the 
Scribes  and  Pharisees  of  his  day :  but  we  have  also  his  authority 
for  declaring  that,  in  spite  of  their  bad  character,  they  "  sat  in 
Moses'  seat  :"*  and  that  the  people  were  therefore  bound  to 
obey  them,  while  yet  they  Avere  to  avoid  following  their  evil 
example.  Suppose,  tiien,  the  reader  were  persuaded  that  all  tlie 
bishops  in  the  world  were  "  hypocritas,"' &c.  &c.,  and  that  all 
episcoj)al  Churches  were  in  a  corresponding  state  of  degradation, 
still  if  Scripture  be  alleged  for  the  claim  that  "  bishops  sit  in  tlie 
apostles'  seats,"  it  is  but  right,  in  testing  that  particular  claim, 
that  there  be  no  reference  whatever  to  the  personal  character 
of  bishops,  or  to  any  real  or  supposed  want  of  spirituality  in  the 
Churches  under  their  government.  Our  Saviour  clearly  tauglit, 
in  the  passage  alluded  to,  the  entire  distinctness  of  ttiese  two 
questions.  Balaam  also  was  a  wicked  man,  but  a  true  prophet.'' 
The  sons  of  Eli,  bad  as  they  were,'  ceased  not  to  be  priests. 
The  Israelites  at  large  were  often  corrupt  and  idolatrous  ;  but 
they  never  lost  their  standing  as  the  earthly  and  visible  Chuich, 
till  their  dispensation  was  superseded  by  that  of  the  gospel. 
1'hose,  therefore,  who  even  maintain  that  episcopacy  is  essential 
to  the  being  of  a  Church,  are  not  to  be  worsted  by  the  extraneous 
argument  now  before  us,  the  comparative  standing  in  piety  of 
Episcopalians  and  Non-Episcopalians.  And,  though  the  present 
writer  subscribes  not  to  that  extreme  opinion,  his  moderation 
nas  no  affinity  with  the  illogical  temperament  of  mind  which 
allows  the  question  of  comparative  piety  to  be  obtruded  upon 
the  investigation  of  the  simple  point — is  episcopacy  to  be  found 
in  Scripture  ? 

In  justice,  however,  to  Episcopalians,  he  deems  it  proper  to 
add,  that  he  does  not  believe  they  will  suffer  by  any  comparison 
of  tbeir  character  with  those  of  other  denominations. 

3.  A  further  suggestion,  allied  to  the  one  last  mentioned,  and 
like  it  extraneous  to  the  scriptural  claim  of  epi«cori-^cy,  is — that 
the  external  arrangements  of  religion  are  but  oi  inferior  im- 
portance, and  that  therefore  all  scruple  concerning  the  subject 
before  us  may  be  dispensed  with.  Now,  that  there  are,  in  the 
word  of  Goi),  things  more  important,  and  tlnngs  less  irni)ortant, 
is  unquestionable;  and  that  the  sin  of  omitting  a  lesser  duty  is 
not  so  deep  as  tliat  of  omitting  a  greater,  will  be  allowed.  Still, 
the  least  sin  is  sin.     Perhaps  there  was  no  part  of  the  old  law 

a  M'lU.  xjciii.  2.  b  Num.  xxii.  to  xxiv.  and  xxxi.  16.  c  1  Sam,  iL 

1* 


6  EPiecopAcy  tested  by  scripture. 

that  stood  lower  in  the  scale  of  importance  than  "  paying  tithes 
of  mint,  anise,  and  cummin ;"  yet  our  Saviour  declared  to  the 
Jews  that  even  this  was  a  duty  which  they  "  ought  not  to  leave 
undone."'' — Can  then  episcopacy,  though  regarded  as  an  affair 
of  tlie  merest  outward  order,  be  rated  lower  than  these  insignifi- 
cant tithes  ?  If  it  cannot,  it  has  a  sufficient  claim  to  consideration ; 
high  as  we  deem  the  oblisation  to  conform  to  episcopacy,  ii  is 
enough  for  the  present  branch  of  our  argument,  that  it  "ought 
not  to  be  left"  unheeded. 

'4.  An  apparently  formidable,  yet  extraneous  difficulty,  often 
raised,  is — that  episcopal  claims  unchurch  all  non-episcopal  de- 
nominations. By  the  present  writer  this  consequence  is  not  al- 
lowed. But,  granting  it  to  the  fullest  extent,  what  bearing  has 
it  on  the  truth  of  the  simple  proposition,  that  episcopacy  is  of 
divine  ordinance?  Such  a  consequence,  as  involving  the  exclusion 
from  the  covenant  of  worthy  persons  who  believe  themselves  in 
Jt,  is  unquestionably  fraught  with  painful  reflections,  and  that  to 
tlie  serious  of  both  parties :  but  so  are  many  undeniable  trutlis. 
Considerations  of  this  kind  cannot  affect  any  sound  proposition. 
— Some  other  considerations,  not  without  value,  here  present 
themselves.  If  Job  lived  about  the  time  of  Moses,  or  later,  he 
was  not  in  the  Church ;  j^et  he  was  eminently  pious,  and  in  fa- 
vour with  God  :  and  the  same,  with  some  qualification,  may  be 
said  of  his  friends.  Balaam  was  not  in  the  Church,  yet  he  was 
an  inspired  prophet.  Jethro,  the  father-in-law  of  Moses,  a  ser- 
vant of  the  true  God,  of  whose  sacrificial  feast,  Moses,  Aaron, 
and  the  elders  of  Israel  participated,'  was  not  in  the  Church. 
The  descendants  of  Jethro,  who  lived  with  Israel, '^  and  must 
have  shared  the  benefit  of  the  divine  oracles,  belonged  not,  we 
think,  to  the  Church,  but  were  uncircumcised,  at  least  for  many 
centuries:  and,  under  the  name  of  Rechabites,  these  people  thus 
living  with  Israel,  though  not  of  Israel,  and  calling  themselves 
"  strangers,"  were  highly  commended  by  the  Deity,  at  the  very 
time  he  passed  a  severe  censure  on  his  Church  or  covenant  peo- 
ple." The  countenance  given  to  other  proselytes  of  the  gate,"" 
is  a  further  illustration  to  the  same  effect — viz.  that,  though  all 
who  hear  the  gospel  are  bound  to  enter  the  Church  by  baptism, 
yet  if  any,  honest  in  their  error,  think  they  are  not  thus  bound, 
there  is  Scripture  for  the  assertion,  that  worthy  professors  of  the 
true  religion,  innocently  without  the  covenant-pale,  are  accepte\l 
with  God. — Viewing,  therefore,  the  objection  before  us  in  even 
its  largest  form,  it  is  not  of  a  kind  to  be  driven  away  from 
decorous  consideration.     To  say  that  other  denominations  of 

d  MuU.  xxiii.  23.  Luke  xi.  42.        e  E.xod.  xviii.  11,  12.       f  Judges  i.  16.,  iv.  11. 

p  Jer.  XXXV.  The  (luestion  whetlier  tlie  descendants  of  Jetliio  were  circumcised 
Knd  belonged  to  tlie  Cliurcli,  is  discussed,  and  a  negative  conclusion  drawn,  in  the 
Protestant  Episcopalian,  for  October,  1830,  p.  368.  Sliould,  however,  any  reader 
incline  to  a  ditferent  opinion,  he  will  please  regard  as  omitted  so  much  of  the  abov« 
argument  as  is  involved  in  that  question :  it  affords  only  an  incidental  illustration  at 
tlie  subject,  without  having  tlie  lea.st  bearing  on  our  main  point. 

h  Sec  Hammond  on  Matt  xxiii.  15.,  and  Calmet's  Dictionary. 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  7 

Christians  belong  not  to  the  Church,  by  no  means  implies  that 
they  are  oast  out  from  the  mercy  of  God  through  tlie  Saviour— 
or,  "that  they  are  inferior  to  the  "Church  in  moral  and  spiritual 
character — or  even,  that  they  are  not  superior  in  these  respects 
to  its  members.  Still,  none  of  these  concessions,  supposing 
even  the  last  of  them  were  made,  can  render  void  the  divine 
appointment  of  the  Church,  the  divine  command  to  "  all  na 
tions,"  and  of  course  to  all  mankind,  to  be  united  with  it,  or  the 
scriptural  evidence  for  episcopacy  as  the  divinely  sanctioned  or 
g-anization  of  its  ministry. 

Many  Episcopalians,  however,  disclaim  the  unchurching  ot 
those  who  disallow  the  episcopal  model  of  the  sacred  orders 
Tlirlr  reasons  for  doing  so  pertain  not  to  the  present  field  of 
controversy.  They  think  that  episcopacy  is  a  sufficiently  dis- 
tinct question,  to  be  separately  carried  into  Scripture,  and  there 
separately  investigated.  They  think  that  its  scriptural  claims 
can  be  sufficiently  proved  to  make  Us  rejection  a  clear  contra- 
vention of  the  word  of  God,  of  the  intimations  there  given  us 
concerning  his  will  in  this  matter.  And,  if  this  amount  of  proof 
can  be  offered  for  the  point  before  us,  what  serious  and  con- 
scientious believer  will  ask  for  either  more  evidence,  or  for  its 
embracing  other  points,  with  which  the  question  of  episcopacy 
is  not  essentially  involved  ? 

5.  We  proceed  to  other  extraneous  matter,  which,  though 
scarcely  plausible  even  in  appearance,  is  akuost  uniformly  dwelt 
upon  by  both  parties  in  this  controversy.  It  is — the  adducing 
of  the  authority  of  individuals,  who,  though  eminent  both  for 
learning  and  piety,  seem  at  least  to  have  contradicted  themselves, 
or  their  public  standards,  on  the  subject  of  episcopacy  ;  and 
who  therefore  are  brought  into  the  fore-ground  by  either  side 
as  may  serve  its  turn.  Now,  is  it  not  clear,  that  the  only  effect 
of  appeals  to  such  authorities  is  to  distract  sound  investigation 
and  the  unbiassed  search  for  truth  1  If  the  writers  in  question 
absolutely  contradict  themselves  or  the  standards  they  have 
assented  to,  their  authority  in  the  case  is  void  ;  if  they  seem  to 
do  so,  their  opinions  cease  to  be  convincing  ;  they  should  there- 
fore, all  of  them,  be  surrendered.  The  consistency  of  such  in- 
dividuals is  a  question  for  their  biographers  ;  it  may  also  belong 
to  the  Ohurches  which  acknowledge  them  as  leaders  ;  but  it  cer- 
tainly is  not  relevant  to  the  main  issue  concerning  the  claims, 
whether  of  episcopacy  or  of  parity.  A  similar  rule  will  apply 
to  all  cases  of  instability  or  indecision  concerning  truth.  Men 
of  the  highest  standing  for  information,  for  integrity,  and  in 
public  confidence,  are  not  only  fallible,  but  are  often  in  situations 
of  such  perplexity,  that  they  attach  themselves  to  an  opinion,  or 
soioct  a  course  of  conduct,  without  perhaps  sufficient  inquiry  or 
insight  into  the  case ;  which  opinion  or  conduct  may  be  at  the 
time,  or  may  afterwards'  be  found,  somewhat  at  variaiu-e  with 
thf'ir  more  doliberate  judgments.  In  i)ul)lic  life  especially,  such 
difficulties  arc  verv  appalling.     Tliu  picscnt  writer  would  not 


8 


EPISCOPACY  TESTED   BY  SCRIPTURE. 


regard  the  mistakes  of  this  sort  into  which  the  eminent  indivj. 
duals  he  now  has  in  mind  may  have  fallen,  as  blemishes  which 
vien  are  called  upon  to  censure,  much  less  to  exaggerate  or  vilify , 
let  it  suffice  that  we  do  not  imitate  them  ;  their  and  our  Master 
'ive  doubt  not,  remembers  in  mercy  that  we  all  are  but  dust.— 
Most  of  the  principal  reformers  are  to  be  enumerated  under  thij 
head  of  our  subject,  Luther,  Melancthon,  Cranmer,  Calvin,  Beza 
we  need  not  extend  the  list ;  they  have  all  been  somewhat  in 
consistent  on  the  subject  of  episcopacy ;  not  much  so  perhaps  tc 
#candid,  or  at  least  to  a  mild  judgment ;  yet  enough  to  impaii 
the  anthorv'ti/  of  iheir  individual  opinions  in  regard  to  the  scrip 
tural  constitution  of  the  ministry. — Another  class  of  illustriou 
and  good  men  have  been  yet  more  inconsistent ;  those  who,  be 
longing  to  the  Episcopal  [English]  Church,  and  acting  in  the 
various  grades  of  her  ministry,  not  excepting  the  highest,  were 
the  friends  of  parity,  or  at  least  were  not  friendly  to  the  episco- 
pacy in  or  under  which  they  acted.  In  regard  to  these  also,  let 
it  be  conceded  that  even  Episcopalians  will  not  criminate  them. 
But  let  them  not  be  quoted  as  having  authority  in  this  contro- 
versy, no,  not  the  least ;  for,  however  innocent  may  have  been 
the  motive  of  their  inconsistency,  that  unfortunate  quality  is  too 
visible  to  allow  their  opinions  on  this  subject  to  have,  as  such, 
the  least  weiglit  in  an  impartial  mind. — A  third  class  may  be 
liere  added ;  those  who  clianged  their  deliberate  sentiments 
concerning  the  claims  of  episcopacy  ;  among  whom  Bishop 
Stillingfleet  is  conspicuous.  Perhaps,  in  such  cases,  the  later 
and  maturer  opinion  should  be  regarded  as  outweighing  the 
earlier  one  abjured.  But  we  prefer  setting  them  both  aside,  as 
having  none  of  the  authority  due  to  the  individual  decisions  of 
"the  learned.  The  UTguments  indeed  of  all  the  above  classes  of 
persons  are  worth  as  much  as  they  ever  were,  and  may  be  again 
adduced,  if  they  have  not  been  refuted.  And  what  they  placed 
in  their  respective  public  standards,  or  allowed  to  be  so  placed, 
cannot  be  retracted,  till  it  be  denied  as  solemnly  as  it  was  affirm- 
ed. But  their  individual  changes  of  opinion,  or  vacillations,  or 
concessions,  ought  not  to  be  deemed  of  any  force  whatever,  for 
or  against  either  party.'  We  reject,  therefore,  this  whole  extra- 
neous appendage  of  the  controversy  before  us.  The  inquirer 
after  truth  has  nothing  to  do  with  it.    Let  the  admirers  of  these 


i  Should  it  be  argued,  that,  from  the  inconsistency  with  which  these  learned  and 
pious  men  have  exp.resseJ  themselves  on  this  subject,  wc  may  infer  their  belief  iu 
the  non-importance  or  uncertainty  of  the  point  here  controverted — I  answer,  that 
such  a  conclusion  is  nnt  warranted  by  the  premises.  If  these  eminent  persons  had 
deemed  the  question  nugatory,  they  would  have  said  so  plainly.  Or,  if  any  of  tliom 
give  such  intimations,  that  is  a  separate  question,  extraneous  to  the  one  now  before 
us,  and  we  have  answered  it  in  a  previous  paraijraph,  marked  3.  These  personti, 
however,  generally  take  sides  resjwcting  episcopacy,  but  do  not  inflexibly  adhere  to 
them.  TJie  true  infertmce  therefore  is,  either  that  they  were  not  entirely  consistent, 
or  that  they  had  ntA.  full  information  or  full  mental  discipline  in  this  argument.  Take 
any  view  of  their  case,  and  it  will  be  found  that  their  opinions  cannot,  as  such,  Lava 
weight  in  our  controversy. 


EPiaCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  9 

eminent  nidividuals  endravour  to  clear  away  the  slight  shades 
thus  resting  npoii  their  memories ;  it  is  a  proper,  it  is  even  a 
pious  undertaking ;  aiid  it  may,  in  some  of  the  cases,  have  been 
done  sulhciently  for  personal' vindication.  But  nothing  of  this 
kind  can  make  "them  rank  as  either  authorities  or  guides  in  the 
present  controversy. 

Appealing  to  every  candid  and  impartial  mind  for  the  sound- 
ness of  the  above  rule,  we  would  add — that  the  rule  applies  to 
the  fathers,  as  much  as  to  later  ornaments  of  the  Cliurch.  One, 
at  least,  of  the  Aethers  has  written  in  a  contradictory  manner 
concerning  episcopacy.  It  will  indeed  be  with  reluctance  fliat 
oiu'  non-episcopal  brethren  surrender  Jerome,  their  chief,  if  r.<>t 
only  authority  among  these  ancient  Christian  writers.  But  i'. 
will  be  hard  to  show  that  he  was  [i\  no  degree  inconsistent  in 
his  views  of  episcopacy ;  it  is  impossible  to  show  it  in  such  a 
manner  as  may,  without  question,  claim  to  be  convincing  to 
both  parties.''  Believing  this  ourselves,  and  believing  also  that 
it  will  appear  self-evident  to  most  who  are  duly  informed,  we 
appeal  to  thi  calm  and  conscientious  decision  of  ihe  reader, 
whether  the  opinions  of  Jerome  must  not  be  set  aside,  as  having 
no  authority  in  the  main  issue  before  us.  His  opinions,  we  say, 
for  he  asserts  nothing  as  a  fact,  on  his  personal  knowledge  ;  and 
much  of  what  he  does  assert  is  contrary  to  the  testimony  of  ear 
lier  fathers. 

6.  Tlie  last  objection  we  shall  notice,  as,  however  plausible, 
not  affecting  the  ultimate  decision  of  our  controversy,  is— that 
though  the  examples  recorded  in  Scripture  should  be  allowed  to 
favour  episcopacy,  still  that  regim.cn  is  not  there  explicitly  com- 
nanded.  Now,  tliis  allegation  may  be  fully  conceded  on  our 
■)art,  without  endangering  the  final  success  of  our  cause.  We 
say,  may  be  conceded ;  for  if  episcopacy  be  allowed  to  be  the 
model  exemplified  in  Scripture,  it  was  of  course  to  that  model 
the  apostle  alluded  when  he  desired  the  brethren  to  "  remember, 
obey,  and  submit  themselves  to  those  who  had  the  rule  over 
them,  who  had  spoken  to  them  the  word  of  God,  and  who 
watched  for  their  souls  ;'"  which  passages,  we  may  justly  affirm, 
were,  in  that  case,  an  inspired  command  to  acknowledge  a 
ministry  constituted  on  the  episcopal  scheme.  Without  surren- 
dering this  argument,  we  may,  in  the  present  stage  of  the  dis- 
cussion, proceed  without -it. 

Let  then  any  candid  and  conscientious  believer  say,  whether 
a  mere  hhit  or  intimation  contained  in  Scripture,  (always  ex- 


k  Jerome,  as  quoted  in  favourof  parity,  is  glaringly  incopsistpnt.  On  the  episcopal 
sido,  however,  some  writers  endeavour  to  reconcile  his  incongruous  opinions.  (See 
Bishop  White  on  the  Catechism, y.  166;  and  Dr.  Cooke's  Ensiii/,  p.  101.  [p.  2S3, 
2d  ed.j  &c.)  But  the  fact  speaks  (or  itself  that  he  is  usually  adduced  on  both  sidea 
of  this  coniroversy.  Enough  to  prove  his  inconsistency  may  be  found  in  FoTTEa 
OT»  ChuTch  aucp.r'r.mfnl,  p.  ISO,  AiinT.  Edit.;  in  Bishop' HoB  ART'S  .i4;>o/oiry,  p.  I  *'J, 
&r,. ;  in  Dowhrn's  LetlKrs  ;  in  the  Episcopal  Manual,  p.  38  ;  acd  in  the  I'roteitant 
Epixrnpatiiin,  No.  3.  p  90,  97,  98. 

I  Hcb.  xiii.  7,  17 


10  EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE. 

cepting  what  refers  to  things  or  circumstances  declared  to  be 
transient,  or  such  in  their  nature,)  tliough  it  have  not  the  force 
of  an  express  command,  is  not  sufficiently  binding  on  every 
servant  of  God  ?  St.  Paul  says  of  the  Gentiles,  "  these,  having 
not  the  law,  are  a  law  unto  themselves  ;"™  they  had  not  the 
positive  revealed  law,  yet  the  light  of  nature,  which  only  inti- 
mates wliat  we  ought  to  do,  but  docs  not  specifically  prescribe 
it,  was  "  a  law"  to  tliem,  having  sufficient  obligation  to  make  its 
suggestions  their  duty,  and  to  give  those  suggestions  full  author- 
ity in  "  their  conscience :"  and  surely  the  hints  recorded  by  the 
Deity  in  his  word  are  not  inferior  in  obligation  to  those  afforded 
in  his  works.  Take  a  few  examples.  I'here  is  no  record  of  a 
command  to  observe  a  sabbath,  during  the  whole  antediluvian 
and  patriarchal  ages  ;  will  it  then  be  alleged  that  the  mere  de- 
claration that  Gou  "  blessed  and  sanctified  the  seventh  day""  did 
not  sufficiently  imply  that  it  was  the  divine  will  that  the  seventh 
day  should  be  kept  holj^  ?  Again :  there  is  no  recorded  com- 
mand, in  all  that  early  period,  to  observe  the  rite  of  sacrifice,  and 
thus  express  faith  in  the  great  truth,  that  sin  is  remittid  only  by 
the  shedding  of  blood;  shall  we  then  presume — will  it  be  pre- 
sumed, by  any  whose  chief  controvers}-  with  us  is  concerning 
episcopacy — that  the  records  of  the  example  of  Abel  in  the  an- 
tediluvian age,  and  of  those  of  Noah,  Abraham,  &c.,  afterwards, 
were  not  suthcient  intimations  from  God  that  to  offi:'r  this  sacra- 
mental atonement  was  a  duty  1°  Yet  again  :  will  any  humble 
Christian  deny,  that  the  mere  fact  of  the  creation  for  each  other 
of  one  man  and  one  woman,  is  sufficient  to  show  that  polygamy  is 
contrary  to  the  will  of  God  ?p  To  proceed  to  the  New  Testament. 
There  is  no  positive  command  for  infant  baptism  ;  but,  its  analo- 
gy with  circumcision,i  the  declaration  that  little  children  are 
models  for  conversion/  the  direction  to  suffer  them  to  come  to 
Christ,  since  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God,'  the  records  of  the 
baptism  of  "households"  or  families,'  and  the  declaration 
that  "  children  are  holy"  or  saints" — are  not  these  sufficient, 
whether  as  examples  or  as  intimations^  to  satisfy  us  of  the  dic- 
tate of  inspiration  in  this  matter,  and  to  authorize  us  to  regard 
infant  baptism  as  resting  on  scriptural  authority?  And  will  not 
the  same  mode  of  reasoning  be  decisive  concerning  the  change 
of  the  day  of  rest  and  devotion  from  the  seventh  to  the  first  V 

m  Rom.  ii.  14.  15  Gen.  ii.  3. 

o  II' it  be  alleged  that  the  "skins"  (Gen.  iii.  21.)  in  which  the  Deity  clothed  Adam 
and  Eve,  were  from  sacrificed  animals,  and  that  the  record  of  that  fact  is  the  same 
as  divine  appointment  and  a  positive  command^ — we  admit  the  fact,  but  deny  that  the 
inferences  aie  tlius  identical  with  iu  All  that  appears  in  that  passage  is  a;i  examjile 
of  sacrifice.  The  obligation  and  permanency  of  the  rite  were  but  jrr'^sumed  from  that 
example,  as  in  the  other  instances  mentioned.  This  record  is  but  an  ititimatioji  ro 
epecting  such  a  duty :  yet  an  intimation  of  that  sort  was,  we  contend,  inipeiative. 

p  Gen.  i.  27.  ii.  24.  v.  2.     Mai.  ii.  15.     Matt  xix,  4,  5.     Mark  x.  6. 

q  Col.  ii.  U,  12.    Rom.  iv.  11,  16.    Gal.  iii.  7.         r  Matt,  xviii.  3. 

s  Mark  X.  14.    Matt.  xix.  14.    Luke  xviiL  16.         '  Acts  xvi.  15,  33.     1  Cor.  L  10 

w  1  Cor.  vii.  14. 

\  Jolm  XX.  1,  26.     Acts  ii.  1 — 4.  xx.  7.     1  Cor.  xvi.  2.    Rev.  i.  10. 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED  BY    SCRIPTURE.  11 

Now,  to  apply  this  body  of  reasoning  :  Is  it  claiming  too  much, 
If  the  above  illustrations  be  duly  weighed,  to  assert  that  the  mere 
example  of  the  apostolical  Church  in  regard  to  the  model  of  the 
sacred  ministry  is  obiigatoiy,-as  an  intimation  of  the  divine  will, 
without  any  explicit  enactment  ?  And  if  that  example,  as  de- 
duced from  Scripture,  be  episcopacy,  nay,  be  episcopacj'  ratker 
llian  parity — if  the  balance  of  sound  interpretation  favour  epis- 
copacy ever  so  little  more  than  any  other  scheme — will  the  duly 
of  conforming,  if  possible,  to  that  ministry  be  evaded  ?  can 
such  conformity  be,  in  this  case,  refused  in  foro  conscienticB 
animoque  integro? 

The  above  remarks,  if  allowed  their  due  force,  will  greatly 
simplify  the  controversy  before  us,  and  will  help  us  to  investi- 
gate the  bciiring  of  Scripture  upon  it,  with  a  clear  judgment  and 
an  unsopliisticated  love  of  truth.  Let  then  all  extraneous  topics 
be  now  forgotten  ;  let  none  of  them  again  make  their  appearance 
in  this  discussion. 

II.  Proceeding  to  the  second  department  of  our  essay — an 
exhibition  of  the  scriptural  evidence  relating  to  this  controver 
sy — we  begin  by  staling  the  precise  point  at  issue.  Passing  by 
the  feeble  claim  of  lay-ordination  and  a  lay-minisfry,  which,  we 
suppose,  will  scarcely  pretend  to  rest  on  either  scriptural  com- 
mand or  example,  we  consider  this  issue  as  between  two  systems 
only,  episcopacy,  and  parity  or  the  presbj'terian  ministry.* 
Parity  declares  that  there  is  but  one  order  of  men  authorized  to 
minister  in  sacred  things,  all  in  this  order  being  of  equal  grade, 
and  having  inherently  equal  spiritual  riglits.  Episcopacy  de- 
clares that  ilie  Christian  ministry  was  established  in  three,  orders, 
called,  ever  since  the  apostolic  age,  Bishops,  Presbyters  or  Elders, 
and  Deacons  ;  of  which  the  highest  only  has  the  right  to  ordain" 
and  confirm,  that  of  general  snpervisioa  in  a  diocese,  and  that 
of  the  chief  administration  of  spiritual  discipline,  besides  enjoy- 
ing  all  the  powers  of  the  other  grades.  The  main  question  he 
ing  thus  concterning  the  superiority  of  Bishops,  and  the  rights 
of  the  next  order  being  restricted  only  so  much  as  not  to  be  in- 
consistent with  those  of  the  highest,  we  need  not  extend  our 
investigation  of  Scripture  beyond  what  is  requisite  for  this  grand 
point.  If  we  cannot  authenticate  the  claims  of  the  episcopal 
office,  we  will  surrender  those  of  our  Deacons,  and  let  all  power 
be  confined  to  the  one  office  of  Presbyters.  But,  if  we  can  esta- 
blish the  rights  of  our  highest  grade  of  the  ministry,  there  can 
be  little  dispute  concerning  the  degrees  of  sacred  authority  as- 
sigiicd  by  us  to  the  middle  and  lower  grades.  This  is  a  further 
clearing  of  our  argument,  not  indeed  from  extraneous  or  irr^le 
vant  matter,  but  from  questions  which  are  comparatively  imim- 
portant. 

w  Other  Jonominations  besides  those  called  Preshvt.'rians  practise  preshvterinn 
■iri)iri;ilii)ii,  as  ilie  Congregalionalisls,  Baptists,  «tc.  Tin-  i>r(liiialion  also  of  the  Lu- 
thorans  and  Methodists  is  proshyteriaii,  Liillirr  and  Wislry  (and  Dr.  Coke,  lite 
COHTce  of  Methodist  ordori.  in  tkis  country)  having'  only  btea  Presbyters. 


12  EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE. 

ITie  main  issue  then  is — wliether  Preshj'^ters  (or,  more  -strictly, 
Presbyters  alone)  have  a  scriptural  right  to  ordain,  or  whether 
the  agency  of  a  minister  of  iiiglier  grade  than  Presbyters  is  not 
essential  to  the  due  performance  of  that  act  ?  Wliichever  way 
this  great  issue  be  decided,  all  subordinate  questions  go  with  it^ 
if  not  necessarily,  yet  because  they  will  no  longer  be  worth  con- 
tending for,  by  either  party. 

As  some  readers  of  this  essay  may  not  be  familiar  with  the 
episcopal  controversy,  it  is  proper  lo  advert  to  the  fact,  that  the 
name  "Bishop,"  which  now  designates  the  highest  grade  of  the 
ministry,  is  not  appropriated  to  that  office  in  Scripture.  That 
name  is  there  given  to  the  middle  order,  or  Presbyters ;  and  all 
that  we  read  in  the  New  Testament  concerning  "  Bishops,"^  (in- 
cluding, of  course,  the  words  "overseers,"  and  "  oversight, "^ 
which  have  the  same  derivation,)  is  to  be  regarded  as  pertaining 
to  thut  middle  grade.  The  highest  grade  is  there  found  in 
those  called  "Apostles,"^  and  in  some  other  individuals,  as  Titus, 
Timothy,"  and  ttie  "angels"  of  the  seven  Churches  in  Asia 
Minor,  who  liave  no  official  designation  given  them  ;  all  which 
posil'u)ns  will  be  made  good  in  the  progress  of  this  essay.  It 
was  after  the  apostolic  age,  that  the  name  "Bishop"  was  taken 
from  the  second  order  and  appropriated  to  the  first ;  as  we  learn 
from  Tlieodoret,  one  of  the  fathers.''  At  first  view,  this  difficidty 
respecting  the  names  of  the  sacred  orders  may  appear  formida- 
ble ;  l)ut,  if  we  can  find  the  thinf^  sought,  i.  e.  an  office  higher 
than  tliat  of  Presbj^ters  or  Elders,  we  need  not  regard  its  vame. 
Irregularity  in  titles  and  designations  is  of  so  frequent  occur- 
rence, yet  occasions  so  little  actual  confusion,  that  it  ought  not 
to  be  viewed  as  a  real  difficulty  in  the  case  before  us.  Examples 
to  this  effect  crowd  upon  us.  The  original  meaning  of 'emperor' 
{iinperator)  was  only  a  general,  but  it  was  afterwards  appro- 
priated to  the  monarch  ;  and  the  original  meaning  of  '  Bishop' 
was  only  a  Presliyter,  but  the  name  passed  from  that  middle 
grade  lo  the  highest.  There  are,  again,  the  '  president'  of  the 
Ihiited  States,  '  presidents"  of  colleges,  and  '  presidents'  of  soci- 
eties; there  are  the  'governor'  of  a  commonwealth,  '  govern(jrs' 
of  hospitals,  and  Ihe  '  govevuor'  of  a  jail ;  there  are  '  ministers' 
of  stale,  and  '  ministers'  of  religion  ;  there  are  '  provosts'  of  col- 
leges, and  '  provosts-mart'al ;'  there  are  '  elders'  (senators)  in  a 

X  Pliilip  i.  1.  1  Tim.  iii.  I,  2.  Tit.  i.  7.  In  1  Pet.  ii.  25.  the  word  "bishop"  is 
figuratively  applied  to  our  Saviour  ;  a.«  "  minister''  [deacon]  is  in  Koin.  xv.  8  ;  r.nd 
"aimstle"  in  Heb.  iii  1.  It  is  worthy  of  note,  that  in  the  last  passao;e,  "apo.Vde  and 
high  priest"  are  coupled  together,  as  "  bishop  and  siiepherd,"  or  pastor,  are  in  llio 
first. 

y  Acts  XX.  28.     1  Pr»   v.  2. 

z  That  the  apostle.?  aV>ne  nrdained  \v\\\  be  provcil.  In  1  Cor.  ;v.  19 — 2?.;  v.  3 — 5. 
2  Cor.  ii  6;  vii.  PJ;  x.  8;  xiii.  2,  10;  and  1  Tim  i.  20,  are  recorded  iniiictiona  and 
remi.ssii)tis  of  ctisriplinc  perP)rnied  b\  an  Aposlle,  or  llireateniiijis  on  his  part,  although 
lliere  must  have  been  Elders  in  Corintli,  and  certainly  were  in  Ephesus. 

a  Timothy  is  u.snally  supposed  not  to  have  the  name  "apostle-'  given  to  iiim  ia 
Scripture,  and  our  main  argument  conforms  to  that  supposition. 

b  See  Note  A. 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    EY    SCRIPTL'RE.  13 

legiolature,  'elders'  (aldermen)  in  a  city  government,  'elders' 
(Presbyters)  in  the  Church,  and  ]ay  'elders'  in  some  denomina- 
tions; there  were  'consuls'  in  Kome  and  in  France  who  were 
supreme  civil  magistrates,  and  there  are  '  consuls'  wlio  are  mere 
commercial  agents  ;  there  are  '  captains'  with  a  cerlam  rank  in 
the  army  or  militia.  '  captains'  with  much  higher  rank  in  tiie 
navy,  and  '  captains'  with  no  legal  rank  ;  in  France,  '  monsieur' 
and  '  nuidame'  are  (or  were)  among  the  highest  titles  in  the 
court,  and  are  also  the  common  appellation  of  respect  among  all 
ranks  of  the  peopie.  Here,  one  would  say,  is  an  almost  un- 
limited confusion  of  names  or  designations  ;  yet  this  confusion 
is  but  apparent ;  there  is  no  real  or  practical  difficulty  in  the  use 
of  them  ;  custom  renders  it  all  easy  and  clear.  So,  a  little  re- 
flection and  practice  will  enable  any  of  our  readers  to  look  in 
Scripture  for  the  several  sacred  offices,  independently  of  the 
names  there  or  elsewhere  given  them.  Let  us  say,  in  analogy 
with  some  of  the  above  examples,  that  there  are  Bishops  of 
parishes  and  Bishops  of  dioceses  ;  and  when  we  find  in  the  New 
Testament  the  name  "  Bishop,"  we  must  regard  it  as  meaning  tiie 
Bishop  of  a  parish,  or  a  Presbyter;  but  the  Bishop  of  a  diocese,' 
or  the  highest  grade  of  the  ministry,  we  must  tliere  seek,  7iot 
under  that  name,  and  independently  of  any  name  at  all.  We 
are  inquiring  for  the  thing,  the  fact,  an  order  higher  than  Pres 
byters :  tiie  name  is  not  worth  a  line  of  controversy. 

There  was  at  least  as  much  difference  between  the  inferior 
kings,  Herod,  Archelaus,  and  Agrippa,  and  the  supreme  king 
Cesar,''  as  there  is  between  the  Presbyter-bishops  of  Scriptr.re 
and  the  Bishops  w^ho  succeed  the  Apostles  ;  the  mere  title 
"  king,"  common  to  all  these,  was  far  from  implying  that  they 
were  all  of  one  grade. 

One  irregularity  in  regard  to  the  application  of  names  is  par- 
ticularly worthy  of  notice.  The  word  "  sabbath"  is  applied  in 
Scripture  to  only  the  Jewish  day  of  rest ;  by  very  common  vsc 
nowever  it  means  the  Lord's  day.  Now,  "  the  sabbath"  is  abo- 
lished by  Christianity,  and  the  observance  of  it  discountenanced ;' 
yet  ministers  of  Christian  denominations  are  constantly  urging 
their  Christian  flocks  to  keep  "  the  sabbath."  Does  any  confu- 
sion of  tlie  mind  resu.t  from  this  confusion  of  names '?  we  sup- 
pose; not.  All  concerned  understand,  tliat  in  Scripture  the  word 
nu-ans  the  Jewish  sabbath,  while  out  of  .Scripture  the  same  word 
is  commonly  applied  to  the  Christian  sabbath.     Let  the  same 

i'ustice  be  dont  to  the  word  "  Bishop."  In  Scripture,  it  means  a 
'resbyter,  properly  so  called.  Out  of  Scripture,  according  to 
the  usage  next  to  universal  of  all  ages  since  the  s4KTed  canon 
was  closed,  it  means  that  sacerdotal  order,  hisjiicr  than  Presby- 
ters, which  is  found  in  Scripture  under  the  title  of  -'  Apostle." — 

c  One  having  power  (o  govern  many  cliiirches  and  clergymen,  whether  fijwu  i  ■■ 
a  din<roH<>  or  riol. 

d  Malt.  ii.  1,  22.     Acts  xxvi.  2.     ivii.  7.     John  xix.  U». 
•  Col.  ii.  16,  17.     GaL  iv.  10. 

2 


14  EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE. 

When  a  Christian  teacher  who  enjoins  the  observance  of  the 
day  which  he  calls  "  the  sabbath"  is  asked  for  his  New-Testa- 
ment authority,  he  has  to  exclude  all  t}ie  passages  whicli  contain 
that  word,  giving  them  a  different  application,  and  go  to  other 
passages  which  do  not  contain  it ;  and  he  argues  that  he  seeks 
the  thhiff,  not  the  name.  And,  when  we  Episcopalians  are  ask- 
ed for  inspired  authority  for  "  Bishops,"  we  do  the  very  same , 
we  give  a  different  application  to  the  passages  which  contain 
that  word,  and  build  on  other  passages,  which  teach  the  fact  of 
the  existence  of  episcopacy,  without  that  appellation.  Thus 
secured  by  an  example  wliicii  is  in  high  esteem  with  our  oppo- 
neuis  generally,  may  we  not  hope  that  they  will  withhold  their 
censure  from  this  portion  of  our  argument  ? 

Another  irregidarity  of  the  same  kind  occurs  in  regard  to  the 
word  "  Elder."  It  is  sometimes  used  for  a  minister  or  clergyman 
of  any  grade,  higher,  middle,  or  lower/  but  it  more  strictly 
signifies  a  Presbyter.'^  Many  words  have  both  a  loose  and  a 
specific  meaning.  The  word  "  angel"  is  often  applied  loosely  ;'' 
but  distinctively  it  means  certain  created  spirits.  The  word 
"  God"  is  applied  to  angels,'  and  idols,''  and  human  personages 
or  magistrates  ;'  but  distinctively  it  means  tlie  Supreme  Being. 
The  word  "  Deacon"  means  an  ordinary  servant,  a  servant  of 
God  in  secular  afTiii'-s,  and  any  minister  of  Christ  ;  but  a  Chris- 
tain  minister  of  the  lower  grade  is  its  specific  meaning.'"  So 
with  the  word  "  Elder ;"  it  is  sometimes  applied  to  the  clergy  of 
any  grade  or  grades  ;  but  us  appropriate  application  is  to  minis- 
ters of  the  second  or  middle  order.  The  above  remarks,  it  is 
hoped,  will  enable  those  who  feel  an  interest  in  consulting  Scrip- 
ture on  the  subject  before  us,  to  do  so  without  any  embarrass- 
ment from  the  apparent  confusion  of  official  names  or  titles. 

To  this  appeal  to  Scripture  in  regard  to  the  question  between 
episcopac}'  and  parity,  we  now  proceed. 

That  the  apostles  ordained,  all  agree :  that  Elders  (Presbyters) 
did,  we  deny.  We  open  this  branch  of  our  argument  with  the 
remark,  that — Apostles  and  Elders  (distinctively  so  called)  had 
vot  equal  power  and  rights.  And  we  demonstrate  this  proposi- 
tion from  Scripture  in  the  following  manner. — These  two  classes 
jf  ministers  are  distinguished  from  each  other  in  tb.e  passages 
which  speak  of  them  a^  "  Apostles  and  Elders,""  or  which  enu- 
merate "  Apostles  and  Elders  and  brethren,"  or  the  laity."  If 
'•  priests  and  levites,"  if  "  Bishops  and  Deacons," p  are  allowed 

t  Apostles  are  called  'Elders'  in  t  Pet  v.  1.  2  John  I,  and  3  John  1.  Deamis 
are  certainly  included  in  that  designation  in  1  Tim.  v.  19.,  and  probably  in  Acts  ilv, 
23.  xxi.  Ifc.  and  James  v.  14.  and  possibly  in  Acts  xi.  30. 

g  Acts  XV.  6,  23.     Tit.  i  5.     Acts  xx  17.     1  Pet.  v.  1. 

h  Acts  xii.  15.     Rev   i.  20.  ix.  14. 

i  Deut.  X.  17.     Ps.  xcvii.  7.  cxxxvi.  2. 

k  Exod.  XX.  3    xxiii.  21,  &c. 

1  E.vyl.  vii.  1.  xxff.  28.     Ps.  Ixxxii.  1,6.  cxxxviii.  1.     John  x.  35. 

m  Sec  Parkhurst  on  A'axovo;  n  Acts  xv.  2,  4,  6,  22 ;  xvL  4. 

0  Acts  IV.  23.  p  Philip  i.  1. 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY   SCRIPTCRE.  15 

to  be  fli?tinct  orders,  if  "  Apostles  and  brethreii,"i  are  also  allow- 
ed to  bo  distinct  orders,  then  on  the  same  principle,  that  the  coii- 
lunrtioii  is  not  exegelical,  "Apostles  and  EId?rs"  may  fairly  be 
accounted  distinct  orders  likewise.  And  as,  in  the  expression 
"Apostles  and  Elders  and  brethren,"  severalty  is  unquestionably 
implied  between  the  latter  of  these  three  classes  and  the  otliers, 
it  must  as  clearly  be  intended  between  the  former  two.  Apos- 
tles were  therefore  one  class,  and  Elders  another  class,  just  as 
tlie  laity  were  a  third  class. — Now,  the  Apostles  were  not  thus 
dislinguislied  because  they  were  appointed  Isy  Christ  personally; 
for  some  are  named  "  Apostles"  in  Scripture  who  were  not  thus 
appointed,  as  Matthias,  Barnabas,  and  probably  James  the  bro- 
ther of  the  Lord,''  all  ordained  by  merely  human  ordainers ; 
Silvainis  also  and  Timothy  are  called  '  Apostles  ;"=  and,  besides 
Andronicus  and  Jnnia,  others  could  be  added  to  the  list.'  Nor 
were  tlie  Apostles  thus  distinguished  because  they  had  seen  our 
Lord  after  his  resurrection ;  for  "  five  hundred  brethren"  saw 
him."  And,  though  the  twelve  Apostles  were  selected  as  special 
wUiiesses  of  the  resurrection,  yet  others  received  that  appellation 
who  were  not  thus  selected,  as  Timothy,  Silvanus,  Andronicus, 
Jimia,  ike.  Nor  were  the  Apostles  thus  distinguished  because 
of  tlieir  power  of  working  miracles ;  for  Steplien  and  Philip, 
who  were  both  Deacons,  are  known  to  have  had  this  power." — 
It  follows,  therefore,  or  will  not  at  least  be  questioned,  that  tlie 
Apostles  were  distinguished  from  the  Elders  because  they  were 
snjterior  to  them  in  ministerial  power  and  rights.*  And,  con 
sidering  the  nature  of  inherent  rights — that  they  cannot  (except 
in  tlie  way  of  punitive  discipline)  be  taken  away  or  justl}'  sus- 
pended, but  are  always  valid — we  do  not  allow  that  this  superi- 
ority of  tlie  Apostles  was  but  transient,  that  they  kept  full  power 
from  the  Elders  for  a  time,  and  conceded  it  to  them  afterwards. 
What  is  given  in  ordination,  is  given  unreservedly  :  and,  as  it  is 
never  ^except  for  discipline)  retracted,  er  suspended,  or  modified 

q  Acts  xi.  1. 

r  Acts  i.  26;  xiv.  4,  14.  Gal.  i.  19  Compare  the  latter  with  Mark  vi.  3,  and 
Joliii  vii.  &;  and  see  Hammond  on  St.  James'  epistle,  and  Bishop  White  on  tliti 
Catechism,  p.  431. 

s  See  1  Thr.fis.  ii.  C,  compared  with  i.  1.  Paul,  Silvanus,  (or  Silas,)  and 
Ti.'iiotliy,  are  all  included  as  "  A|K)i:-'le.s."  In  verse  18,  Paul  speaks  of  himself  indi- 
vidually,  not  probably  before.  It  is  not  unusual,  indeed,  for  St.  Paul  to  use  tlie 
plural  nunil)er  of  himself  only  ;  but  the  words  "  Apostles"  and  "  our  own  souls' 
(verse  8.)  bcin^  inapplicable  to  tlie  singular  use  of  the  pura  number,  slioiv  that  the 
three  whose  names  are  at  the  head  of  this  epistle,  are  here  sfjoken  of  jointly.  And 
ilius,  Silas  and  Timothy  are,  with  Paul,  recognized,  in  this  passage  of  Scri|)t:ire,  as 
"  Apostle^.'' 

I  It  will  here  be  snfficiont  to  remark,  that  in  2  Cor.  xi.  13,  and  Rev.  ii.  2,  "  faKsa 
Ajiofitli-s"  are  spoken  of  These  could  not  have  been,  or  have  pretended  lo  be,  anv 
of  the  eleven,  or  of  the  five  next  above  mentioned,  or  Paul.  Tlieir  assumint;  there- 
fore the  title  of  '  Ajjosties'  shows  that  there  were  enough  nihers  who  liail  ih^s  liUe  lo 
make  their  pretended  claim  to  it  plausible.  And  those  ollieis  iiiusl  have  been  ordiMii 
ed.  not  by  Christ,  but  by  men  who  had  his  commission. — Calvin  allows  An- 
dronicuR  and  Junia  (Roiri.  xvi.  7.)  to  have  Ix^n  Ajiosiles.    Iiisfit.  b.  IV    c.  iii.  sect.  S 

u   1  Cor.  IV.  6.  »  Acts  vi.  8 ;  viii.  6.  w  See  note  z,  on  jiage  12. 


16  EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY   SCRIPTORB, 

by  the  piver  or  givers,  and  particularly,  as  in  the  case  o^  ♦ha 
first  "  Elders"  tliere  is  no  record,  and  no  evidence  whatever,  of 
an}'  public  decree  or  private  agreement  relating  to  such  a  re- 
traction, or  suspension,  or  modification,  we  cannot  but  regard 
that  tlieory  as  mere  hypothesis  ;  and  against  the  taking  for 
granted  of  any  mere  hypothesis,  all  sound  reasoning  protests. — 
We  repeat,  therefore,  that  the  "Apostles  and  Polders"  were  of 
distinct  orders ;  as  tndy  so,  as  were  the  "brethren"  or  laity  a 
third  class,  different  from  bolli  the  others. 

If  these  views  of  Scripture  and  of  the  nature  of  inherent  rights 
of  office,  be  allowed,  as  we  think  they  ought  to  be,  then  we  lia^e 
proved  in  favour  of  episcopacy,  that  there  was  originally  a 
sacred  office  superior  to  that  of  "  Elders"  or  Presbyters.  And 
this  is  substantiating  nearly  the  whole  episcopal  claim. 

}3ut  tlie  defenders  of  parity  reject  these  our  views  of  Scripture 
and  of  official  rights,  and  build  tlieir  S3^stemon  the  theory  which 
we  have  pronounced  to  be  mere  hypothesis.  Wliile  they  grant 
tlie  superiority  of  the  Apostles,  they  contend  that  the  subordination 
of  tlie  Elders  was  but  a  transient  regulation,  required  by  the  exi- 
gencies of  the  then  new  Church  ;  and  that  as  churches  became 
settled,  the  whole  ministerial  power  rested  in  the  Elders,  no  part 
of  it  being  any  longer  withheld  from  them.  The  proof  they 
allege  is,  that  the  "  Elders"  are  said  in  the  New  Testament  to 
have  ordained  and  exercised  fnll  government  and  discipline.  In 
answer  we  assert,  1.  that  there  is  vo  scriptural  evidence  tiiat 
"  Elders"  ever  obtained  or  exercised  the  right  [or  the  complete 
right]  of  ordination  ;  but  that,  2.  there  was  continued,  as  hud 
begun  in  tlie  Apostles,  an  order  of  ministers  superiur  to  tlie 
Elders.  Both  these  assertions  we  can  prove.  And  under  the 
latter  head  it  will  appear  that  Elders  did  not  exercise  discipline 
over  tlie  clergy. 

1.  Tliere  is  no  scriptural  evidence  that  mere  Elders  [Presby- 
ters] ordained. 

Excluding  a  few  unavailing  appeals  to  Scripture  made  by 
some  of  our  opponents,  but  which  we  think  will  be  allowed  to 
have  the  effect  of  weakening  their  cause,^  there  are  but  two  pas- 
sages which  can  even  plausibly  be  claimed  in  favour  of  presby- 
terian  ordination.  Yet  by  neither  of  these  passages  can  thai 
practice  be  substantiated. 

The  first  is  Acts  xiii.  1,  2,  3.  Five  persons  called  "prophets 
and  teacliers,"  at  Antioch,  among  whom  Barnabas  is  named  first, 
and  Saul  last,  are  directed  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  "separate  me 
Barnabas  and  Saul  for  the  it-or/c  whereuntol  have  called  them  ;" 
which  the  other  three  accordingly  did,  by  fasting  and  prayer, 
and  the  imposition  of  hands,  and  then  sent  them  away.  Thia 
transaction  is  sometimes  presumed  to  have  been  the  ordination 
of  Barnabas  and  Saul  to  the  one  sacred  order  of  parity  ;  and  as 
it  was  performed  by  those  who  were  only  "  prophets  and  teach- 

X  As  the  facts,  tliat  tliere  was  more  than  one  ordainer  in  Acts  i.  26.  and  xiv.  23 
Tue  answer  is,  that  tlie  ordainers  were  Apostles,  not  mere  Presbyters. 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  17 

*rs,''  it  is  claimed  as  a  scriptural  example  of  presbyterian  ordi 
nation.     But  this  claim  may  be  unanswerably  refuted.  *!.  Bi*-- 
nabas  and  Saul  are  tbemselves  here  called  "  prophets  and  teach- 
ers," and  are  said  to  have  "  ministered  to  the  LoRn,"  as  well  as 
tlie  other  three;  of  course,  if  these  three  were  in   orders,  the 
other  two  were  likewise,  before  this  laying  on  of  hands.     'J'liis 
transaction,  theiiefore,  (/"an  ordinal  ion,  must  have  been  a  second 
and  of  course  higher  one ;  which  is  inconsistent  wiih   parity. 
If  it  was  not  an  ordmation,  as  it  certainly  was  not.  it  M-as  a  mere 
seating  apart  of  those  two  Apostles  to  a  particular  field  of  dntj'-, 
Avhieh  has  no  bearing  on  tiie  question  before  us.     2.  Paul  had 
been  a  preacher   long  before  this   occurrence,''  and    Barnabas 
also  ;^  which  facts,  together  with  that  of  their  "  ministering  to 
the  Lord,"  as  already  mentioned,  are  proof  positive  that  they 
held  the  sacred  commission   before  this   laying  on  of  hands : 
wliich  of  course,  we  repeat,  must  have  been  either  a  second  and 
higlier  ordination,  which  is  fatal  to  parity,  or  else  no  ordiiuUion, 
l)Ut  only  a  separation  to  a  particu-lar  field  of  duty,  to  a  special 
"  work."     3.  That  this   transaction  at  Antioch  related   only  to 
a  special  missionary  "work,"  v>  ill  be  fomid  sulliciently  clear  by 
those  who  will  trace  Paul  and  Barnab;is  through  that  work,  from 
Acts  xiii.  4.  to  xiv.  26.  where  ils  completion  is  recorded — "and 
thence  sailed    to   Antioch,  from  whence  they  had   been  recom 
mended  to  the  grace  of  God  for  the  work  which  ihcy  fyljiilci/.^^ 
This  "work,"  their  missionary  tour,  being  "fulfilled,"  ;dl   was 
fulfilled  that  had  been  required  by  the  Holy  Ghost  when  he  had 
them  "separated,"   or  "recommended    to  the  grace  of  God," 
"  for  the  work  to  which  he  had  called  them."     This  call,  there- 
fore, this  separation,  this  work,  related  only  to  a  particuhir  mis- 
sion.    And  this  laying  on  of  hands  was  no  ordination,   but  a 
lesser  ceremony,  which  has   no   bearing  on    the    controversy 
between  parity  and  episcopacy.  4.  The  most  explicit  proof  that 
tills  was  not  an  ordination,  is  found  in  Gal.  1.  1.  wliere  I'aul  de- 
clares himself  to  be  ''an  Apostle,  not  of  men,  neither  by  man, 
hut  by  JEses  (,"iiri«t  and  God  tlie  Father."  Not  o/'men,  neitlier 
iit/  man  :  is.not  such  language  an  absolute  exclusion  of  all  human 
agency  in   Paul's  ordination  ?     What  other  language  could  add 
to  its  strength  ?     None  but  that  which  immediately  follows:"6j/ 
Jesus  (Jiiiust  and  God  the  Father."  Paul  having  been  made  an 
Apostle  by  the  Saviour  in  person,  when  he  appeared  tohim  on  the 
road  to  Damascus,"  it  could  not  iiave  been  that  the  transaction  at 
'Antioch  was  his  ordination.'^ — And  if  in  his  case  that  ceremony 

y  Actsix.  20—22.  27 — 29.  z  Acl.s  xi.  23,  20.         a  Acts  xxvi    16,  17,  I?. 

li  The  (<)!li)wiiig  additional  proofs  are  woilliv  (if  notice.  1.  In  Koiii  i.  5.  I  Cor. 
i.  17.  and  1  Tim.  i.  I.  Paul  asseiHsliiat  his  apostolical  coniiiiir-f-ion  was  from  Chuist. 
2.  Fn  the  first  verses  rt^sppctivfly  of  I  Cur.  2  Cor.  F^plirs.  Col.  and  'z  Tun.  lie  un- 
clans  hiiiisclf  an  Apostle  "ihrounh"  or  "by  the  will  of  God."  3.  In  Ga..  i.  17. 
e;:''i'^;r.g  of  the  p<'riod  ■'  inunediately"  after  his  conversion,  he  says  thai  lie  went  not 
to  tho.^r-  who  "  win-e  Apuutlfs  hf-for»  him,'  r)f  coui'S"  \w  refiardcd  hiinst'll'  ns  an 
AjKjstle  at  tlial  jii'riod,  and  from  the  inuinent  tliat  Ciimi-T  had  appi-arcd  to  him. 
1.  In  1  Tim.  ii.  7.  he  asBcrts  his  aposileship  with  u  strong  asseveration — "  whco' 

2* 


18  EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE. 

meant  not  ordination,  it  of  course  meant  it  not  in  the  case  of 
Barnabas.  Wlicn  the  latter  liad  been  made  an  Apostle,  we  know 
not ;  iieitlicr  do  we  know  when  James  the  brother  of  the  Lord, 
Silvaniis,  Timothy,  &c.  were  admitted  to  that  office. 

Tills  first  claim  to  Scripture  in  behalf  of  presbytcrian  ordina- 
tion cannot  therefore  be  substantiated  ;  inasmuch  as  an  act,  of 
ordination  is  not,  and  cannot  be  implied  in  the  passage  appealed 
to.  Should  any  mink  otherwise,  they  must  not  only  refute  the 
above  arguments,  but  make  it  appear  also  from  Scripture  that 
the  supposed  ordainers  were  mere  Pre^sbyters  ;  for  the  appella- 
tions "  prophets  and  teachers"  are  far  from  settling  this  point. 
If  Barnabas  and  Paul,  to  whom  those  titles  are  given,  are  to  be 
regarded  as  laymen  about  to  be  ordained,  why  not  regard  the 
other  three  as  laymen  also,  holding  a  lay  ordination  7  the  one 
may  as  well  be  taken  for  granted  as  the  other;  for  we  read 
that  laymen  and  even  lay-women  "prophesied"  in  the  age  of 
mspiralion.'^  Or  if  the  three  supposed  ordainers  called  "prophets 
and  teachers"  were  clergymen,  they  may  have  been  Apostles, 
superior  to  Elders,  since  Silas  is  called  both  a  "  prophet"  and 
an  "  Apostle"''  and  the  prophets  are  called  the  "  brethren"  of  the 
Apostle  John;"  the  Apostle  Paul  calls  himself  a  "  teacher."''  Be- 
sides ;  it  has  been  shown  that  Paul,  here  classed  with  "  prophets 
and  teachers,"  was  also  at  this  time  an  Apostle ;  and  docs  not  tliis 
fact  afford  presumptive  argument  that  the  other  four  whose 
names  stand  above  his  in  the  list  contained  in  the  passage,  wera 
also  of  apostolic  rank?  In  view  of  these  many  difficulties,  we 
may  securely  affirm,  that  it  is  impossible  to  bring  any  evidence 
whatever  tl;at  this  transaction  at  Antioch  was  an  ordination  by 
Presbytfc.'s.  We  have,  indeed,  shown  that  it  was  not  an  ordina- 
tion of  any  kind.  And  we  therefore  dismiss  the  claim  of  noii- 
episcopaliuns  to  this  passage  of  the  New  Testament. 

Only  one  other  passage  is  claimed  for  presbytcrian  ordination 
— "  neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  Avas  given  thee  by 
prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  tlie  hands  of  the  presbytery.'''' 
(1  Tim.  iv.  14.)  This  is  regarded  by  our  non-episcopal  brethren 
as  the  record  of  a  presbytcrian  ordination.  Let  us  inquire,  how- 
ever, whether  the  transaction  was  an  ordination  1  and  whether, 
if  so,  it  was  a  presbytcrian  ordination? 

Was  the  laying  on  of  hands  on  Timothy  here  mentioned,  an 

unto  I  am  ordained  a  prcaclier  and  an  Apostle,  (/  speak  the  truth  in  Christ  and 
lie  not,)  &c."  Hud  his  ordination  been  performed  by  men,  it  would  have  been  well 
known,  as  in  ordinary  cases  ;  had  it  been  pertornied,  as  alleged,  at  Antiocli,  it  would 
have  had  [leculiar  publicity  and  such  a  mode  of  asserting  it  woulil  have  been  out  ot 
place  and  even  improper  in  St.  Paul.  But  his  commission  having  been  given  hin 
by  Christ  personally,  and  the  men  present  at  t!ie  time  not  understanding  the  words 
then  pronounced,  (Acts  xxii.  9.)  it  was  both  nntin-al  and  correct,  in  declaring  that  he 
Was  tlius  commissioned,  to  tise  solemn  asseverations  and  pledge  his  veracjly.  This 
was  enough  for  ordinary  purposes.  The  final  proof  of  his  declaration  and  iijs  asseve 
rations  was  (he  performance  of  miracles. 

c  1  Cor.  xi.  5.     Acts  xix.  G.  and  xxi.  9. 

d  Acts  XV.  32.     1  Tliess.  ii.  6.  comp.  witli  i.  1. 

•  Rev.  xxii.  J.  f  1  Tim.  ii.  7     2  Tim.  L  U. 

to--- 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTrRE.  19 

ordination?  It  cannot,  at  least,  be  proved.  And,  conipnring 
Scripture  M'itli  Scripture,  are  v.c  not  justified  in  reganiiifg 
it  as  a  transaction  similar  to  the  one  we  have  just  seen  in  the 
case  of  Barnabas  and  Saul  ?  In  both  cases  there  was  the 
ceremony  of  the  imposition  of  hands.  And  the  dictation  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  to  the ''  prophets"  in  the  one  case,  corresponds  with 
the  "  prophecy,"  or  inspired  designation  of  the  individual  in  tlie 
other  case;  a  designation  previously  adverted  to  by  St.  Paul, 
"  this  charge  I  commit  unto  thee,  son  Tinioth)'-,  according  to  the 
prophecies  which  went  before  on  thee."°  We  submit  this  view 
of  the  transaction  performed  by  those  called  the  "  prcsbj'tery"  to 
the  candid  judgment  of  our  readers.  If  they  should  allow  that 
it  probably  refers  to  an  inspired  separation,  of  one  already  in 
tlie  ministry,  to  a  particular  field  of  duty — to  the  "charge  com- 
mitted to  him"  in  lorm  by  St.  Paul,  corresponding  with  "  the 
work"  to  Mhich  Saul  and  Barnabas  were  separated — a  practice 
which  must  of  course  have  ceased  with  the  gift  of  inspiration — 
they  will  see  that  it  was  not  an  ordination  that  was  performed 
by  "the  "presbytery,"  but  only  a  "  recommending  oi^  Tiuiotliy 
to  the  grace  of  God  for  the  work  he  was  to  fulfil."  The  ordina- 
tion of  Timothy  may,  be  alluded  to  by  St.  Paul  in  tlie  second 
epistle,  "  the  gift  of  God,  which  is  in  thee,  by  the  putting  on  of 
my  hands."''  If  so,  it  was  an  ordination  by  an  Apostle,  as  is  the 
uniform  record  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament.  If  not, 
then  Timothy's  ordination  is  nowhere  specifically  mentioned, 
out  is  to  be  inferred,  as  in  other  cases:  and,  in  this  view,  both 
these  passages  are  unconnected  with  the  controversy  before  us. 

But  our  non-episcopal  brethren  generally  regard  the  passage 
m  question  as  referring  to  the  ordination  of  Timothy,  Let  us 
meet  them  on  this  ground. 

Was  it  a  presbyterian  ordination  ?  W^e  first  reply,  that  emi- 
nent authority  has  declared  the  word  "  presbytery"  to  mean  the 
office  to  which  Timothy  was  ordained,  not  the  persons  who 
ordained  him  ;  so  that  the  passage  would  read — "  witli  the  lay- 
ing on  of  hands  to  confer  tlie  presbi/terate,"  or  presbytcrsliip, 
or  the  clerical  oflice:  in  which  vieAV,  the  ordainer  of  Timothy 
was  St.  Paul  himself,  as  mentioned  in  the  clause  just  quoted 
from  the  second  epistle.  On  this  point,  we  adduce  a  passage 
from  GROTirg.  Speaking  of  Presbyters  laying  on  their  hands 
near  those  of  a  Bishop,  he  proceeds — "  I  do  not  dare  to  bring  in 
confirmation  of  this,  that  expression  of  Paul's  of  the  impusitivn 
of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery,  because  I  see  that  Jkkome,  Am- 
HKOSK,  and  other  ancients,  and  Calvin,  certainly  the  cliief  of  all 
tlie  mf)derns,  interpret '/;/Y'i'67//er/»m' in  tliat  place  not  an  assem- 
hli/,  but  tlie  office  to  wliicli  Timotliy  was  promoted  :  and  indeed 
he  who  is  conversant  with  tlie  councils  and  the  writings  of  the 
fathers,  cannot  be  ignorant  lliai^ jn-eshi/tei-iuni,''  n^i'' ('])LsC(i])(iins^ 
and  '■diaconalus'  are  the  names  of  offices.     Add  that  it  appears 


g    t  Tim.  i.  13      Sec  also  M'Knicht's  uote  on  the  passage.  h  1  Tiw.  i.  6. 


20  EPISCOPACY  TESTED  By  SCRIPTURE 

that  Paul  laid  hands  ol  Tiniolhy."'  By  this  intorpretatun  of 
th«  word  "  presbyter}-" — that  it  means  not  the  ordainers,  but  the 
office  confer  red — we  remove  all  appearance  of  discrepancy  be- 
tween that  passage  and  the  one  in  which  Paul  speaks  of  the  im- 
position of  his  hands.  And,  to  make  the  least  of  the  above  opinion 
of  several  fathers,  and  Calvin,  and  Grotius,  does  not  tlieir  au 
thority  render  donbtful  the  application  of  the  passage  before  us 
to  a  body  of  presbyterian  ordainers  ? — Should  it  be  said,  however, 
that  the  word  "  prcsbyterate  or  presbytership"  proves  'I'imothj' 
to  have  been  then  ordained  a  Presbyter  merely,  we  would  neu- 
tralize thf-t  argument  by  appealing  to  1  Thess.  ii.  6,  (comp.  with 
i.  1.)  where  he  is  called  an  "Apostle."  We  would  also  advert 
to  the  fact,  that  however  distinct  may  have  been  the  three  above 
Latin  names  for  the  three  gradesof  sacerdotal  office,  those  names 
of  office  were,  in  the  Greek,  and  at  an  earlier  period,  applied 
but  loosely.  At  least,  they  were  so  in  the  New  Testament. 
Thus  we  read,  "this  ministry  [^deaconship']  and  apostleship^^'^ 
for  the  office  to  which  Matthias  was  admitted  :  "  I  am  the  apos- 
tle of  the  Gentiles,  I  magnify  mine  office"  [my  deacojiship,'] 
"  the  ministry  {^cleaco/is/iip}  which  I  have  received,"  "  approving 
ourselves  as  the  ministers  [deacons']  of.Goo,"'  are  passage? 
applied  by  St.  Paul  toiiimself;  we  also  read,  "  who  then  is  Paul, 
and  who  is  Apollos,  but  ministers  [deacons]  by  whom  yc  be- 
lieved ;""  and  "  do  the  work  of  an  evangelist,  make  full  prool 
of  thy  ministry"  [deaconsliip,]  "  thou  shalt  be  a  good  minister 
I  deacon]  of  Jesus  Christ,"  are  af'monitions  addressed  to  Timo- 
thy." These  passages,  not  to  cite  here  other  like  ones,  while 
they  may  be  said  to  go  far  towards  proving  that  ?/ there  be  only 
one  sacred  order,  it  must  be  the  order  of  Deacons,  answer  irre- 
fragably  all  that  might  be  suggested  to  the  disadvantage  of 
episcopacy  from  the  application  of  the  word  "  prcsbj'tery"  to 
the  sacred  office  to  which  Timothy  was  ordained:  since,  if  prcs- 
byterate or  presb5'tership  means  that  he  was  but  a  Presbyter, 
deacoiiship  must  mean  that  he,  and  IVIatthias,  and  Paul,  and 
Apollos,  were  but  Deacons.  In  short,  as  all  experienced  inter- 
preters are  aware,  and  as  in  this  controversy  Episcopalians 
always  assert,  we  look  not  to  Scripture  for  official  names  of  any 
kind,  but  only  for  official  powers  ;  and  Timotiiy,  we  there  find, 
has  a  higher  degree  of  power  than  the  word  Presbytet-ium,  as 
distinguished  from  Episcopatus  and  Diaconahis,  would  allow 
him.  The  word  "presbytery"  then,  according  to  the  njode  ol 
interpretation  now  before  us,  though  it  refer  to  office,  does  not 
designate  a  subdivision  of  office,  but  alludes  generally  to  the 
clerical  office  conferred  on  Timothy. 

But,  granting  to  our  opponents  that  "  the  presbj'tery"  means 
here,  not  tlie  office  given  to  Timothy,  but,  as  they  contend,  a 
body  of  Elders,  and  that  his  ordination  is  the  transaction  referred 

i  See  Dr.  Cooke's  Essay,  p.  192.  [3G3,  2d  ed.  \  k  Acts  i.  25. 

1  Rom.  xi.  13.     Acts  .\-.x.  24.    2  Cor.  vi.  4.  ml  Cor.  iii  6. 

a  2  Tim.  iv.  5.     1  Tim.  iv.  6. 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  2. 

^T" — WO  again  meet  them  on  the  question,  was  it  a  presbyferian 
&»-dnation  ?  And  here  we  aslc— of  wiioui  was  this  ordaining 
'yresiiyter}^"  composed?  for  tiie  whole  question  centres  in  the 
niv,-tining  of  that  word.  A  presbytery  means  a  l)ody  of  Elders; 
anu  taken  alone,  it  can  be  interpreted  of  any  kind  of  I'Hders. 
Those,  for  example,  who  think  they  find  in  Scripture  what  are 
called  rnlin^-elders,  may  retjard  this  presbytery  as  having  Ijcen 
made  up  of  them  ;  and,  if  they  were  not  contradicted  by  other 
passages  they  might  here  claim  a  shadow  of  proof  for  lay-orders. 
Others  may  assert  that  the  grade  called  Presbyters  made  up 
this  presbytery.  Or,  as  St.  Peter  and  St.  .Tohn  call  themselves 
"  Elders,""  this  presbytery  may  have  consisted  of  Apostles.  Or, 
lastly,  it  may  have  been  composed  of  any  two  of  the  kinds 
of  Elders  mentioned,  or  of  ail  the  three  kinds  uniting  in  the 
imposition  of  hands  on  Timothy  ;  there  may  have  been  ruling- 
elders  and  Presbyters,  or  Presbyters  and  one  or  more  Apos- 
tles, or  ruling-elders  and  one  or  more  Apostles,  or  ruling- 
elders  and  Presbyters  and  Apostles.  There  are  then  no  less 
than  seven  modes,  if  we  seek  no  further  evidence,  in  which  this 
"presbytery"  ???«//  have  been  composed.  Or,  if  we  exclude 
ruling-elders,  there  are  three  modes  in  which  it  may  have  been 
formed ;  of  Presbyters  onh^,  of  Apostles  only,  and  of  one  or 
more  Apostles  and  Presbyters  united.  The  mere  expressi(;n 
"  presbytery"  therefore,  does  not  explain  itself,  and  cannot  of 
.  itself  be  adduced  in  fiivour  of  parity. 

If.  however,  it  be  urged,  that  ihe  specific  meaning  of  the  wora 
"Elder"  should  have  the  preference,  so  as  to  place  Presbyters 
only  in  this  ordaining  "  presbytery, '■'  we  answer — that  the  spe- 
cific lueaning  of  tlie  title  of  an  individual  officer  is  far  fj-om 
extending  necessarily  to  the  similar  title  of  a  body  or  an  office. 
We  have  just  noticed  an  objection  kindred  with  this;  but  it  may 
not  be  improper  to  add  some  further  illustrations  of  the  uncer- 
tainty of  ollicial  names.  Thus  we  say,  the  Jewish  "  priesthood," 
including  in  that  term,  with  the  priests,  the  superior  order  of 
high-pnests,  and  tlie  inferior  one  of  levites.  Thus  also  we  have 
the  phrases,  "ministry  [literally  (/efiro7?s/i/7:»]  of  reconciliation," 
and  the  expressions  "that  the  ministry  \^deacoiiship'\  be  not 
blamed,"  "  seeing  we  have  this  ministry"  [deaco'nship,'\  "  putting 
me  into  the  ministry"  [^deaconsJii])  ;\  and  more  especially 
"  Apostles,  prophets,  evangelists,"  &c,  are  all  said  to  have  been 
given  "  for  the  work  of  the  ministry"  [deacym^lup  ;\^  in  all 
which  pap,.-:ages  the  word  deaconsiiip,  haKovta,  the  appellation 
strictly  of  a  sacred  body  of  men,  or  of  their  ollice.  includes,  nay 
bignifies  chiefly,  those  who  were  superior  to  Deacons.  'J'lie 
word  "  presbytery"  therefore,  being  no  more  definite  than 
"  ministry  or  deaconsiiip,"  cannot  explain  ilself'm  favour  of  our 
oi»ponenls.     It  can  only  be  defined  "  a  body   of  clergymen."'' 

o  I  Pet.  V.  1.     2  Jolin  1.     3  Jolin  1. 

p  2  Cor.  V.  18.     vi.  3.     iv.  1.     1  Tim.  i.  12.     Ephcs.  iv.  It,  12. 

<4  Thii  word  "  prcsbyterate  or  jircsbylersliip"  also  means,   us  'usJ  sliown,  nothing 


25J  EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE. 

And  these  clergymen  may  have  been  in  part  or  entirely  ApoS' 
ties,  wlio  wore  superior  lo  Presbyters. 

It  is  evident,  tlierefore,  we  repeat,  that  this  passage,  ?/it  refer 
loan  ordination,  cannot  be  interpreted  without  light  from  other 
Scripnires.     'I'o  this  light,  therelore,  we  refer. 

The  "  presbytery,"  we  have  seen,  may  have  consisted  of 
Apostles  only,  or  of  one  or  more  Apostles  joined  with  others. 
In  conformity  with  this  suggestion,  we  find  St.  Paul  writing  to 
Timothy,  "  tliat  thou  stir  up  the  gift  of  God,  which  is  in  thee  by 
the  putting  on  of  my  hands."""  Now,  the  same  reasons  which 
make  the  passage  respecting  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  tlie 
presbytery  apply  to  ordination — the  same  reasons  will  make 
this  other  passage,  respecting  the  putting  on  of  PauVs  hands, 
apply  lo  that  identical  ceremony ;  unless  indeed  a  second  and 
higher  ordination  be  here  supposed,  whicli  however  destroys 
parity,  and  wbich  of  course  parity  cannot  adduce  in  its  own 
beliaif  In  the  ordination,  therefore,  of  Timothy,  Paul  had  at 
least  a  share  ;  that  Apostle  laid  on  his  hands,  whoever  else  be 
longed  to  the  ordaining  "  presbytery."  It  cannot  of  course  be 
claimed  as  a  presbyterian,  but  was  an  apostolic  ordination.  And 
tluis  the  allegations  of  our  opponents  from  this  passage,  in  sup- 
port of  the  ordaining  powers  of  mere  "  Elders,"  are  overturned. 
We  have  proved  tl'.at  Presbyters  alone  did  not  perform  tlie  ordi- 
nation, granting  the  transaction  to  have  been  one,  but  that  an 
Apostle  actually  belonged,  or  else  was  added  for  this  purpose, 
to  the  body  called  a"  presbytery."" 

It  is  worthy  also  of  note,  that  St.  Paul  makes  the  following 
distinction  in  regard  to  his  own  agency  and  that  of  the  others 
in  this  supposed  ordination — "%  the  putting  on  of  my  hands" — 
'■hvitJi  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery."  Such  a  dis- 
tinction may  justly  be  regarded  as  intimating  that  the  rii-tne 
of  the  ordaining  act  flowed  from  Paul ;  while  the  presbytery, 
or  the  rest  of  that  body  if  he  were  included  in  it,  expressed  only 
co]isent. 

On  the  whole :  Can  it  be  denied,  that  a  cautious  and  candid 
interpretation  of  the  two  passages  said  to  relate  to  the  ordina- 
tion of  Timothy,  requires  that  a  minister  be  present  wlio  holds 
the  [ordinary  and  uninspired  portion  of  the]  rank  and  rights  of 
an  Apostle,  to  give  ordaining  power  to  any  body  called  a  pres- 
bytery ?  Were  there  even  no  explicit  evidence  in  our  favour  in 
the  other  parts  of  Scripture,  the  episcopal  theory  would  be  at 
least  as  good  a  key  as  that  of  parity  to  the  meaning  of  the  word 

more  specific  tlian  "  the  clerical  office."  The  word  "  bishopric"  (Acts  i.  20.)  has, 
on  tlie  same  principles,  no  stricter  signification.  The  prcsi-Mit  writer  is  not  aware 
of  any  instance  in  Scripture  in  whicii  the  spfici/jc  meaning  ol  a  name  oi  office  liaa 
necessarily  the  preference;  perhaps  the  word  "apostlcship"  is  an  exception;  it  ia 
ised  only  ofthosc  known  to  have  been  Apostles. 

r  2  Tim   i.  G. 

s  Ignatius,  well  known  for  his  zeal  lor  opiscopacy,  and  martyred  about  theyeat 
MO,  calls  the  j4poj/^es  the  "  presbytery  of  the  Church."  Hpist.  lo  the  Fhiladtlf 
phi'ins.  Sect.  S. 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE.  23 

"  presD\icry."  And  considering  the  above  distinction  of  "  by' 
and  '=  with,"  our  theorj^  is  obviously  the  better  of  the  two.  Yet 
here  the  non-episcopal  argument  from  Scripture  is  exhausted. 
Its  strongest  proof  has  been  demonstrated  to  be  but  barely  con- 
sistent \vith  parity,  while  it  is  more  consistent  with  episcopacy. 
\^'e  dismiss  therefore  the  claim  of  our  opponents  to  this,  the 
only  passage  of  Scripture,  besides  the  one  before  dismissed,  to 
which  they  could  raise  any  pretensions. 

Let  our  readers  now  be  reminded,  that  Ave  before  showed 
"Apostles  and  Elders"  to  have  been  distinct  classes  of  minister.s, 
as  distinct  as  were  the  "  brethren"  or  laity  from  both.  That  the 
former  ordained,  is  allowed  on  all  hands,  and  is  clear  from  Scrip- 
ture.' But  we  have  now  demonstrated  that  there  is  no  inspired 
authority  for  the  claim  that  mere  folders  [Presbyters]  ordained — 
none,  at  any  period  of  the  apostolic  age.  Of  course,  there  is  no 
scriptural  proof  that  such  Elders  have  the  right  to  ordain.  To  ad- 
diice  evidence  of  their  enjoying  such  a  right,  was  incumbent  on 
parity  ;  but  having  failed  to  do  so,  it  cannot  ask  of  us  to  allow  such 
a  right  witliout  evidence.  It  cannot  be  proved,  and  it  is  not  to 
be  allowed  without  proof,  that  mere  Presbyters  eillier  performed 
the  ordinations  mentioned  in  Scripture,  or  are  tliere  said  to 
have  the  right  to  perform  such  acts.  This  poshion  cannot  be 
overturned. 

2.  All  that  is  now  incumbent  on  episcopacy  is — to  show  that 
the  above  distinction  between  Elders  and  a  grade  superior  to  them, 
in  regard  especially  to  the  power  of  ordaining,  was  so  perse- 
vered in  as  to  indicate  that  it  was  a  'permanent  arrangement, 
and  not  designed  to  be  but  temporary  To  this  final  branch  of 
our  argvunent,  which  is  also  an  independent  and  very  pi'ominent 
argument  for  episcopacy,  we  now  proceed. 

Let  any  one  read  Acts  xx.  28  to  35,  and  consider  well  what  St. 
Paul  there  gives  as  a  charge  to  the  U/rZer.s  (Presbyters  or  Pres- 
byter-bishops) of  Ephesus.  Then  let  him  read  the  two  epistles  to 
Timothy,  and  reflect  candidly  on  the  chf,rge  which  tlie  same 
Apostle'  gives  to  him  personally,  Timothy  at  I^phesus.  And, 
after  this  comparison  of  the  charges,  let  him  decide  wliether 
Scripture  does  not  set  that  one  individual  above  those  Elders, 
in  ecclesiastical  rights,  and  particularly  in  regard  to  the  power 
of  ordaining. — Or,  if  such  an  inquirer  feel  any  doubt  as  to  the 
positiveness  with  which  the  superiority  of  Timothy  is  asserted, 
let  him  conscientiously  determine  what  are  the  intimations  o! 
Scripture  on  tiiis  subject — which  way  the  balance  of  proof  in- 
clines. To  us  the  proof  seems  absolute ;  but  it  is  enough  for 
a  rightly  disposed  mind  that  it  only  preponderate.  Examine 
then,  these  two  portions  of  the  New  Testament;  and  first,  that 
relating  to  the  Elders. 

In  Acts  XX.  28,  «S:c.  the  Elders  of  Ephesus  are  rliarged — to 
lake  heed  to  themselves — to  take  heed  to  all  the  flock  over  which 


t  Acta  i.  26.     vi.  6.     xiv.  23.     2  Tim.  L  6. 


24  EPISCOPACY    TESTED    EV    SCRIPTURE. 

the  Holy  Ghost  had  made  them  ovei  seers — to  feed  the  Church 
of  Gon — and,  rememberhig  the  Apostle's  warnings  for  three 
years,  to  watch  against  the  grievous  wolves  that  would  assail 
the  flock,  and  against  those  from  among  themselves  who  woidd 
si)eak.  perverse  things.  These  are  the  four  points  (or  three,  if 
tlie  second  and  third  be  united)  of  the  admonition  left  with  thein 
by  St.  Paul;  to  which  another  may  be  added,  from  verse  35, 
concerning  industry,  and  charity  to  the  "  weak."  Now,  what 
is  there  in  this  admonition  or  charge  which  shows  that  these 
Elders  had  the  power  of  clerical  dicipline?  surely  nothing. 
They  are  lo  be  cautious  themselves,  and  to  watch  against  false 
teachers ;  but  no  power  is  intimated  to  depose  from  office 
either  one  of  their  own  number,  or  an  unsound  minister  coming 
among  them.  They  are  to  "  feed,"  or  perhaps  (as  the  word  is 
sometimes  translated)  rule"  the  Church  ;  i.  e.  they  are  lo  "tend 
it  as  shepheids."'  The  "Church"  of  course  means  here  the 
"flock"  before  mentioned,  orthe  laity;"'  for  shepherds  do  not 
tend  or  rule  shepherds,  unless  it  be  that  there  are  superior 
shepherds  among  them,  who  have  i-eceivcd  such  authority  from 
their  common  master  or  employer.  Government  of  the  clergy, 
therefore,  these  Elders  had  not,  as  far  as  appears,  witliin  their 
own  body.  And  not  a  trace  or  hint  is  there  of  their  having  Ijad 
the  right  to  ordain. 

We  may  here  add,  that  the  right  of  these  Elders  to  govern 
and  ordain  cannot  be  claimed  as  resulting  from  construction  or 
implication  ;  for  every  passage  in  Scripture  which  asserts  or 
intimates  power  over  the  clergy,  gives  that  power  to  Apostles, 
or  else  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  or  to  the  "  angels"  of  the  seven 
Churches  in  Asia ;  and  these  cannot  be  proved  lo  have  been 
mere  Presbyters,  but  w^re,  as  we  have  shown  in  regard  to  the 
Apostles,  and  are  now  .diowing  in  regard  to  the  rest,  distinct 
and  superior  onicers.  Constructive  or  implied  powers  can  only 
be  inferred  in  the  absence  of  positive  evidence;  and  as  there  is 
positive  evidence  in  other  passages,  nothing  of  implication  can 
be  valid  here.  The  positive  evidence  is  against  parity  ;  nor  can 
construction  be  resorted  to  for  its  relief. — Nor  is  a  resort  to  such 
construction  suggested  by  the  spirit  of  Paul's  address  to  these 
Elders,  since  the  theory  which  asks  no  construction  is  quite  as 
congenial  with  its  several  expressions  as  that  which  requires  it. 
On  the  episcopal  theory,  indeed,  there  can  be  no  final  authority 
over  the  clergy  without  a  Bishop  ;  but  it  is  not  contrary  to  that 
theory,  that  Presbyters,  in  such  a  case,  exercise  much  spiritual 
discipline  over  the  laity:  they  may  re])el  from  the  communion, 
which  is  a  very  high  act  of  "ruling;"  and,  there  being  no 
Bishop,  there  ran  b(!  no  appeal  from  such  a  sentence.  Among 
us,  a  diocese  without  a  Bishop  "  rules  the  llock"  in  many  respects 

u  Sec  Note  B. 

V  See  Parkhubbt  on  iroi/iaivu. 

w  As  in  AcU  XV.  4,  22.     It  is  simply  fKJssible  lliat  Deacons  are  included  in  suoh 
passages. 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY    SCRIPTCRE.  25 

but  lias  110  final  or  exeoulive  authority  over  its  clergy  ;  and 
Epliesus  was  without  a  Bishop  when  Paul  addressed  the  Elders, 
Timothy  not  having  been  placed  over  that  Churcli  till  some  time 
afterwards.^'  As  therefore  the  episcopal  theory  suits  this  address 
perfectly,  without  a  resort  to  constructive  or  implied  powers, 
such  a  resort  in  behalf  of  the  Elders  is  unnecessary,  is  gratuitous, 
and,  of  course,  is  an  unsound  mode  of  interpretation. 

The  functions  then  of  the  Elders  of  Ephesus,  as  developed  in 
Acts  XX.  were  only  pastoral ;  they  were  to  feed,  tend,  rule,  the 
fock,  and  take  heed  to  them,  and,  Avatching  for  tliem,  were  to 
warn  them  against  false  teachers.  As  St.  Paul  elsewhere  expresses 
th^  duty  of  Bishops,  (Presbyter-bishops.)  they  are  to  "  take  care 
of  the  Church  of  God  ;"y  the  "  Church"  meaning  of  course  the 
laity,  as  just  observed  in  regard  to  Acts  xx.  28.  Or,  as  St.  Peter 
expresses  that  duty,  they  are  to  "  take  tlie  oversight"  of  the 
^'■Jiock''^  which  they  "feed."^  These,  v/e  believe,  are  all  the 
rights  named  in  Scripture  as  belonging  to  Elders.  Whatever 
higher  privileges  are  there  specified  or  adverted  to  (except  the 
bare  possibility  of  their  having  been  united  witli  Paul  in  the 
"  presbytery"  which  is  supposed  to  have  ordained  Timothy) 
are  invariably  ascribed  to  Apostles,  or  to  the  other  persons 
before  mentioned,  as  Timothy,  Titus,  and  the  "  angels"  of  the 
seven  Churches. 

Compare  now  with  this  sum  total  of  power  assigned  in  Scrip- 
ture to  mere  Elders  or  Presbyters,  that  of  Timothy  at  Ephesus, 
the  very  city  and  region  in  which  those  addressed  by  Paul  in 
Acts  XX.  resided  and  ministered.  Look  through  the  two  epistles 
addressed  to  that  individual  by  the  great  Apostle,  and  mark  the 
explicit  manner  in  which  the  right  of  governing  the  clergy  ana 
of  ordaining  is  ascribed  to  him  personally — every  part  of  both 
epistles  being  addressed  to  him  in  the  singular  number— "this 
charge  I  commit  unto-^/jee,  son  Timothy" — "  these  things  write 
I  unto  iliee^  that  tliou  miglitest  know  how  to  behave  thyself  in 
the  house  of  God" — '•  if  thou  put  the  brethren  in  remembrance 
of  these  things."'^  Observe  the  same  address  to  him  in  the  sin- 
gular number  when  clerical  government  and  discipline  are  spo- 
ken of — "  that  thou  miglitest  charge  some  that  they  teach  no 
other  (no  false)  doctrine" — "  against  an  Elder  receive  not  [//iOJi] 
an  accusation,  but  before  two  or  three  witnesses" — "  them  [those 
of  the  Elders  thus  accused]  that  sin,  rebuke  [thou]  before  all, 
that  others  also  may  fear" — "  I  charge  tkce  ....  that  tho^l 
observe  these  things  [these  rules  of  clerical  discipline,  &c.] 
without  preferring  one  before  another,  doing  nothing  by  par- 
tiality."'' Observe  particularly  his  right  to  ordain — the  qualifi- 
cations of  Bishops  (Presbyter-bishops)  and  Deacons  are  ad 


X  Tiio  date  of  tlie  placing  of  Timothy  at  EphcRus  is  discussed  in  M'Knight  on 
the  Epistles,  Vol.  IV.  p.  1.'56  ;  in  the  Church  Register  for  1827,  Nos.  13  to  17;  and 
in  tlie  Protestant  Episcopalian  for  May,  1831.  y  1  Tim.  iii.  5. 

alPtt.  V.  2.        a  I  Tim.  i.  18;  iii.  14,  15;  iv.  6.  b  I  Tiin.  i.  3;  v.  19,  20,  21 


26  EPISCOr'AcV    TKSTEP    HY    SCRIPTURE. 

dressed  to  him,  "  these  things  write  I  imto  thee''" — he  is  after 
wards  admonished,  in  regard  to  the  ordaining  of  these  two  infe 
rior  orders,  "lay  \^th3}f\  }iands  suddenly  on  no  man" — and  again, 
"  the  things  wliicli  thou  hast  heard  of  me,  the  same  commit  thon 
to  faithful  men,  who  sliall  be  able  to  teach  others  also,"''  i.  c.  to 
men  who  are  both  souiut  in  the  faith  and  apt  to  leach.  Observe, 
moreover,  that,  while  to  the  Klders  of  Ephesus  Paul  alludes  t« 
ministers  who  would  "  speak  perverse  thinffs,''''''  yet  gives  not  a 
hint  of  their  exercising  discipline  upon  such  offenders,  to  Timo- 
thy he  mentions  that  ^•ery  error,  and  in  terms  entirely  equiva- 
lent, as  having  occurred  at  Ephesus,  calling  it  the  "  teaching  of 
other  or  false  doctrme,'"  and  desires  hhyi  to  check  it — "  liiat 
thoji  mightest  charge  some  that  they  teach  no  other  doctrine"- - 
and  it  is  afterwards  added,  respecting  the  clergy  who  thus  oi 
other^'ise  were  in  fault,  "  them  that  sin,  rebuke  thoii."^  Teach 
ing  "  other  doctrine"  and  speaking  "  perverse  things"  are  one 
and  the  same  offence ;  the  correction  of  it  is  no  where  commit 
ted  to  the  Elders  ;  to  Timothy  it  is  here  expressly  comrrjitted. 

Is  it  not  evident,  abundantlj'  evident,  that  Timothy  had  su- 
preme power  over  the  clergy  at  Ephesus,  and  the  full  right  to 
ordain  ?  Comparing  these  many  passages,  and  the  tenor  and 
spirit  of  the  entire  epistles,  with  the  before  cited  address  to  the 
Elders  of  Ephesus,  can  any  one  require  stronger  proof  of  epis- 
copacy, or  stronger  disproof  of  parity  ?  Did  not  the  ministry  at 
Ephesus  consist  of  three  orders — Timothy  first,  the  Elders  (or 
Presbyter-bishops)  next,  and  Deacons  last? — it  clearly  did. 

Compare  again  that  address,  and  all  that  is  recorded  of  mere 
Elders,  with  the  epistle  to  Titus.  Examine  his  powers  in  the 
island  of  Crete.  To  him  are  specified  the  due  qualifications  of  a 
Presbyter-bishop  or  Elder.'  His  clear  credential  from  the 
Apostle  Paul  is,  "  for  this  cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that  ihoii 
shouldest  set  in  order  the  things  that  are  wanting,  and  [that 
thou  shouldest]  ordain  Elders  in  every  city,  as  I  had  appointed 
f/jce" — and  again,  "  a  man  that  is  an  heretic,  after  the  first  and 
second  admonition,  [do  thou']  reject:"''  ordination,  admonition, 
and  rejection,  (or  degradation  and  excommunication,)  are  all 
committed  to  Titus  personally.  The  Elders,  as  already  seen, 
hadjio  power  given  them  to  "  reject"  those  who  should  "  speak 
perverse  things"  or  "heresy;"  Titus  had  that  power.'  All  this 
agrees  perfectly  with  the  case  of  Timothy.  And  nothing  like 
it  can  be  shown,  any  where  in  Scripture,  of  any  Avho  are  there 
distinctively  called  Elders  or  Presbyters.  Is  it  not  clear,  then, 
that  the  recorded  powers  of  Titus  make  him  an  officer  of  a  grade 
superior  to  that  which  we  must  assign,  resting  only  on  the  sa 
cred  recr  rd,  to  such  Elders  ?    This  is  episcopacy. 


c  1  Tim.  iii.  1— H.  cl   1  Tim.  v.  22.     2  Tim.  ii.  2.  e  Acts  x.x.  30. 

f  1  Tim.  i.  3;  v.  .iO.  g  Tit.  i.  0—9  h  Tit   i.  5  ;  iii.  10 

1  The  expression  ^'perverse  things,"  the  teachers  of  which  the  Elders  had  n 
power  to  condemn,  agrops  with  that  used  respecting  the  heretic,  "such  is  subverted.' 
v'lou!  Titus  Viad  power  lo  reject.     The  words  are,  Suarpait/ieva  and  tftff'-pairrni 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE.  27 

Compare  yet  again,  all  that  is  recorded  of  Elders,  "with  the 
episik'ri  to  the  "  angels"  of  the  seven  Clmrches  of  Asia>  Kach 
of  those  Cluirclies  is  addressed,  not  through  its  clergy  at  large, 
but  lliroiigli  its  "angel"  or  chief  oflicer ;  this  alone  is  a  very 
strong  argument  against  parity  and  in  favour  of  episcopacy. 
One  of  tliose  Churclies  was  Epliesus  ;  and  when  we  read  con- 
cerning its  angel,  '•  thou  hast  tried  tlirm  which  say  they  are 
Apostles,  and  are  not,  and  hast  found  thern  liars,"'  do  we  reqniro 
further  evidence  that  wiiat  Timotliy,  the  chief  officer  there,  was 
in  the  year  G5,  in  regard  to  the  supreme  riglit  of  discipline  o\'er 
tlie  clergy,  the  same  was  its  chief  ollicer  when  this  book  was 
written,  in  the  }"ear  96 '?  Let  us  examine  also  other  [lassages. 
In  eacli  of  these  small  epistles,  the  "  angel"  is  made  responsiljle 
individually  for  the  errors  of  the  respective  Churches,  and  is 
commended  individually  for  their  respective  merits  ;  and  tills, 
altliough  there  nuist  have  been  several  or  many  Elders  in  each 
of  those  Churches,  as  there  were  in  Ephesus  thirty  or  forty  years 
before.'"  Observe  the  emphatic  use  of  the  singular  number  in 
the  address  to  each  of  the  ani^els — "  I  know  ihi/  works,""  is  the 
clear  and  strong  language  directed  to  them  all  succes-^ively,  im- 
plying the  responsibility,  not  of  a  (Jhurch  at  large,  or  of  its  cler- 
gy at  large,  but  of  the  head  or  governor  individnally.  'J'o  the 
same  etfect  we  read,  as  commendations  of  these  angels — "  thmt, 
holdest  fast  my  name" — "  thou  hast  a  few  names  wliich  have  not 
defiled  their  garments" — "  I  have  set  before  thee  an  open  door" — 
"  f.hnu  hast  a  little  strength,  and  hast  kept  my  word"=' — and,  on 
the  other  hand,  they  are  thus  rebuked — "  I  have  a  few  things 
against  ihee'^ — "  because  ihnii  hast  them  that  hold  the  doctrine 
of  liidaam" — "  thou,  sufferest  that  woman  Jezebel  .  .  .  to  teach, 
ccc." — "  if  thou  shalt  not  watch,  I  will  cuirie  on  thee  as  a  tlii(-f" 
— "  thou  art  neither  hot  nor  cold."''  Similar  to  these  are  the 
warnings  of  Christ  to  these  '-angels,"  all  implying  their  indi- 
vidual responsibility  for  the  faults  of  the  Churches, — "  remember 
\thoii\  from  wlience  thou  art  fallen,  and  repent  [thou]  and  do 
[thouj  the  first  works" — "  repent  [thou]  or  else  I  will  come  unto 
thee  (juickly"— "be  [thou]  watchful,  and  strengtlien  [thou]  the 
things  which  remain" — "  hold  [thou]  fas»  that  which  thou  hast" 
— "  be  [thou]  zealous,  and  repent  [thou],  i  There  are  other  like 
passages  ;  indeed  these  seven  epistles  are  nearly  made  up  of 
them.  The  individual  called  "  the  angel"  is,  in  each  case,  icU'ii- 
tified  with  his  Church,  and  his  Church  with  him.  And  in  the 
few  places  where  the  language  addresscnl  to  the  ('hurclics  by  the 
Suviour  is  in  the  plural  number,'"  it  is  addressed  to  them  gene- 
rally, no  particular  reference  being  made  to  their  Elders,  as  if 
they  shared  the  responsibility."     On  the  contrary,  we  lind  this 

k  Rev.  ii.  iii.  «  Rev.  ii.  2. 

m  Acts  XX.  17.  n  R-v.  ii.  2,  9,  H,  10;   ili.  1,  8,  15. 

1  Ri-v.  ii.  13;   iii.  4,  &.  ,5  K.'v.  ii.  N,  --'H;    iii.  3,  15 

q  R.;v.  ii.  n,  IC;    iii   2.  11,  19  r  U(.v.  ii.  10,2:3—20. 

•  Sec  Nolo  C 


28  EPISCOPACY   TFSTED    BY   SCHIPTDRE. 

peculiarly  strong  expression  in  the  admonition  to  the  an^el  o/ 
tlie  Ephesian  Church,  where,  as  has  been  fully  sliown,  there 
M-ere  many  Elders  or  Presby  tei-s,  "  I  will  remove  thy  candlestick 
[thy  Church]  out  of  his  place,  except  thou  repent"' — not  the 
Church  of  the  presbytery,  nor  even  of  thy  presbytery,  but  "  thy 
Church."     Surely  aMiiocesan  is  here! 

Test  then  by  these  seven  epistles,  by  each  of  them  and  all  of 
them,  the  episcopal  and  presbyterian  theories,  and  see  which 
best  agrees  with  tlieir  letter  and  their  spirit:  most  assuredly 
they  are  episcopary  from  beginning  to  end.  Connect  tnese  epis- 
tles with  those  to  Timothy  and  Titus;  and  decide  whether  they 
do  not  all  procj-iim  episcopacy.  Compare  this  entire  connected 
evidence  with  all  that  is  recorded  concerning  the  powers  of  mere 
Elders  ;  and  let  the  spirit  of  candour  and  impartiality  determine 
wheiher  episeopacy  does  not  even  triumph  in  the  abundance  of 
Us  scriptural  proofs." 

And  let  it  be  observed,  that  we  have  made  no  use  of  those 
scriptures  which  merely  cr,!7Tee  with  episcopacy,  or  tend  to  illiis- 
trate  the  affairs  of  the  apostolic  Church  according  to  that  theory, 
but  only  of  those  which  are  its  demonstration.  And  this,  we 
think,  is  complete. 

All  minds,  however,  do  not  appreciate  evidence  equally.  Let 
then  our  argument  be  rated  at  its  lowest  value,  and  it  will  still 
be  suflicient.  Is  there  any  thing  like  positive  proof  in  Scripture, 
that  mere  Elders  [or  Presbyter-bishops]  had  the  power  of  su- 
preme di.'^cipline  over  the  clergy,  or  ordained  without  the  co- 
operation of  a  minister  of  higher  authority  ?  there  certainly  is 
not,  as  we  have  fully  shown.  Is  there  not,  however,  in  Scrip- 
ture, proof  absolutely  positive  that  persons  of  higher  authority 
than  Elders  did  ordain,  and  did  possess  the  supreme  right  of 
clerical  discipline?  there  certainly  is,  as  we  have  most  abun- 
dantly demonstrated.  Is  there  not,  moreover,  positive  scriptural 
proif  that  these  high  powers,  superior  to  those  ascribed  to  mere 
Elders,  existed  in  other  individuals  than  the  original  Apostles, 
.and  continued  in  the  possession  of  such  officers  to  the  latest  date 
of  the  inspired  volume  ?  it  cannot  be  reasonably  questioned. 
Now,  let  the  reader  stimate  all  this  evidence  as  low  as  he 
pleases,  it  is  evidence  t-noiisfh  for  episcopacy.  A  hint  concern- 
ing the  will  of  Goo  should  be  imperative  with  every  humble 
and  conscientious  believer.  The  slightest  preponderance  of 
proof,  when  all  has  been  investigated,  should  be  sufficient  for  a 
candid  mind. — Let  then  such  considerations  have  their  due 
weight  with  those  who  may  think  that  our  argument  comes 
short  of  demonstration. 

We  are  persuaded,  however,  that  to  strict  and  severe  reasoners 
it  will  appear  a  very  close  apj)roximation  to  demonstrative  proof. 


t  Rov.  ii.  5.     In  Re^'.  i.  20,  tlie  candlesticks  are  said  to  be  the  Churches, 
n  For  further  remarks  on  the  ptrmaticnt  obligation  of  cpiecopacy,  sec  Note  P 
And  concerning  tlie  plea  of  necessity  for  departing  from  that  ministry,  see  Note  E 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY   SCHIPTrnE.  29 

Of  such  reasrmers  we  ask — can  a  single  step  be  made  in  apply- 
ing Scripture  to  the  support  of  parity,  without  taking  something 
fur  granted  P  if  there  bean  argument  for  parity  free  from  tins 
objection,  the  present  writer  does  not  recollect  to  have  seen  it. 
On  the  other  hand,  is  not  the  scriptural  argument  for  episcopacy 
a  regular  induction  from  scriphiral  facts?  we  are  persuaded 
that  no  impartial  mind  will  aeswer  in  the  negative. 

We  assert,  therefore,  in  conclusion,  that  the  episcopal  ministry 
alone  has  the  authority  of  the  inspired  writers.  All  the  facts, 
all  the  examples  they  record,  without  one  clear  exception,  show 
that  such  was  the  ministry  of  the  apostolic  age.  We  therefore 
now  add  tliis  other  assertion — that  such  was  the  ministry  alluded 
to  by  the  Apostle  when  he  wrote,  "  remember  them  which  have 
the  rule  over  you,  who  have  spoken  unto  you  the  word  of  God, 
....  obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you,  and  submit  your- 
selves, for  they  watch  for  yoin-  souls,  as  they  that  must  give  ac- 
count."* Whether  such  an  injunction,  taken  in  connexion  with 
what  has  been  proved  in  this  essay,  does  not  amount  to  an  in- 
spired command  to  conform  to  the  episcopal  ministry,  is  left, 
with  prayer  for  their  right  direction  and  decision,  to  the  con 
sciences  respectively  of  our  readers. 


POSTSCRIPT. 

On  the  plea  of  Parity — that  Timothy  acted  as  an  ^^ Evangelist?^ 

Parity  alleges  that  Timothy  exercised  supreme  authority  in 
the  Church  at  Ephesus  as  an  "Evangelist  ;"*  and  that  that  office, 
like  (on  their  theory)  the  entire  apostolic  supremacy,  was  hut 
temporary;  and  that  thus,  in  a  short  period,  the  whole  clerical 
power  rested  in  the  one  grade  of  Elders  or  Presbyters. 

To  this  allegation,  in  all  its  parts,  we  have  several  conchisive 
answers. —  1.  Timothy  is  called  an  "Apostle'"'  as  Avell  as  an 
"  evangelist ;"  and  as  he  thus  had  the  highest  ecclesiastical 
power  in  virtue  of  the  apostolic  office,  the  appellation  "evangel- 
ist" could  add  nothing  to  it.  Neither,  of  course,  can  any  infer- 
ence bearing  on  the  episcopal  controversy  be  drawn  from  that 
appellation. —  2.  It  docs  not  appear  that  evangelists  had,  as  such, 
any  particular  rank  in  the  ministry.  Philip,  the  Deacon,  was 
an  "evangelist  ;"=  in  Ephes.  iv.  11.  'evangelists  are  put  after 
"prophets;"  in  1  Cor.  xii.  28.  they  are  not  included  at  all;  i* 

V  Soe  Notfi  p. 

w  Heb.  xiii.  7,  17.  ReealsoNotcO.  fora  roAitation  of  the  objection,  tliat  monarcli" 
(iDK  aji  troo(l  srrif  lural  uujiorily  as  episcopacy. 

a  See  2  Tim.  iv.  6.        b  1  Tliess.  ii.  0.,  coinparcU  willi  i.  1.        c  Acts  xxi.  8. 

3* 


30  EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY    SCRIPTURE. 

appears  also  that  somcof  the  hiity  did  the  work  of  CA'angelizing  'A 
and  ysl  Timottiy,  an  Apostle,  is  directed,  we  see,  to  do  tlie  sair*! 
work.  To  rely  therefore  on  the  mere  ^///e" evangelist"  in  proof 
of  any  thing  wliicli  is  to  aifect  our  controversy,  is  futile;  no 
argmnent  can  be  bnilt  upon  it  without  taking- for  s-ranicd  that 
evangelists  had,  as  such,  these  high  clerical  powers,  which  is 
the  very  allegation  in  dispute. — 3.  There  is  770  proof  whatever 
that  Tiius  and  the  •'  angels"  of  the  seven  Churches  were  evan- 
gelists. If,  therefore,  we  should  surrender  the  case  of  Timothy, 
tliese  other  cases  of  supreme  ecclesiastical  authority  would  still 
contradict  parity,  and  be  evidence  for  episcopacy.  Sound  rea- 
soning, however,  will  rather  yield  up  the  claims  founded  on 
the  application  to  Timo'hy  of  the  mere  title  "  evangelist ;"  it 
would  rather  retain  the  case  of  Timothy  for  the  episcopal  cause, 
independently  of  other  considerations,  from  its  perfect  analogy 
with  these  cases,  which  obviously  and  unavoidably  belong  to 
that  cause. — 4.  If  we  sliould  allow  that  the  superior  riglits  ol 
the  Apostles  and  of  this  evangelist  came  soon  to  a  close,  there 
would  yet  be  no  evidence  (or  no  clear  evidence)  that  mere 
Elders  either  had  or  acrjuired  the  power  of  ordaining  and  Oi 
executive  clerical  discipline.  We  should  but  find  tliat  the  Church 
was  left  wUhovt  an  order  of  inen  who  could  show  positive  in- 
spired credentials  for  exercising  these  high  functions.  And  this 
demonstratio  ex  absurrlo  is  of  itself  almost  suthcient  for  episco- 
pacy. The  su|)erior  office  of  the  Apostles,  and  of  Timothy, 
'J'itus,  and  the  seven  "angels,"  must  have  been  intended  to  be 
permanent,  whatever  was  the  name  of  that  office,  and  however 
its  naine  might  be  changed.  For,  be  it  not  forgotten,  that,  as  it 
cannot  be  proved,  it  ought  not  to  be  allowed,  that  any  Inii  those 
who  held  this  apostolical  or  episcopal  office,  superior  to  that  of 
mere  Presbyters,  either  performed  the  ordinations  mentioned  in 
Scripture,  or  are  there  said  to  have  the  right  to  perform  such 
acts. 

No  certain  and  precise  definition  can  be  fouml  for  the  word 
"  evangelist,"  as  used  in  Scripture ;  the  mere  name  decides 
nothing  more  than  it  would  in  the  more  thoroughly  Engjish 
-form  g-ospeller.  Etymologically,  its  only  meaning  is  "a  per- 
son occupied  with  or  devoted  to  the  gospel ;"  and  as  the  gos- 
pel means  the  "  good  message,"  the  idea  contained  in  the 
latter  word  may  be  extended  to  "  evangelist,"  and  that  title  be 
defined  "  a  messenger  of  the  good  message,"  i.  e.  one  who  pro- 
claims the  gospel.  Applied  in  this  sense  to  a  minister,  it  seems 
equivalent  to  the  Avord   preacher;  it  may  also  mean,  but  \vd\ 

d  Acts  viii.  4.  and  xi.  19,  20  ;  spe  the  Gi-ppIc.  In  Acts  viii.  1.  the  "church"  at 
Jerusalem  is  said  to  be;  scattered  aliroad  ;  thf;  Ap»stles  are  excepted  ;  witli  that  («• 
eejition  "they  v; ere  all  scattered,"  saitl)  the  pas^ag■e;  mcniiing,  doubtlefc-B,  that  so 
niany  fled  as  to  break  U])  their  assemblies;  of  course,  t!io  scattering  a[iplies  to  iha 
Inity  chiefiy  ■  and  Sutne  of  tliese  are  thus,  we  think,  included  ainotis^  those  wlio  wers 
enp^aged  in  "evangelizing."  The  word  "i)reach"  in  lliese  passages  is  of  course,  in 
tliis  view,  used  by  our  translators  wi<h  some  latitude  ;  as  will  also  bo  saen  on  exam- 
ininjj  the  Oreek — XaXeu  and  tuayycXi^u)  being  the  words  thus  trEinslated.- 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE.  31 

necessarily,  a  spreader  of  the  gospel,  a  missionary  ;  and  mis- 
sionaries, we  know,  may  be  either  Bishops,  Presbyters,  or  Dea- 
cons, either  of  the  three  orders.  Yet  in  none  of  the  three  places 
in  Scripture  where  the  word  "  evangelist"  occurs^  are  missiona- 
ry duties  even  hinted  at.  The  epistles  to  Timothy  require  of 
him  nothing  of  the  kind  ;  and  the  immediate  context  of  the  verse 
containing  that  word  charges  him  only  to  "  preach  the  word,  to 
be  instant  in  season,  out  of  season,  to  reprove,  rebuke,  exh(j^'t  to 
sound  doctrine,  watch,  and  endure  afflictions."  It  is  not  to  be 
presumed  then  from  Scripture  that  an  evangelist  was  necessarily 
a  missionarj'.f  Nor  was  the  Church  at  Ephesiis  new  enough  to 
require  Timothy  as  its  evangelist  in  the  missionary  sense  ;  for 
.1  must  have  been  eleven  years  founded  when  Timothy  is,  for 
the  first  and  only  time,  called  by  that  title. — Etymology  and 
Scripture  then,  the  only  proper  authorities  in  our  present  ar- 
gument, both  leave  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  evangelist" 
uncertain. 

And  if  we  consent  to  appeal  to  the  fathers,  to  which  our 
opponents  would  lead  us  for  further  liglit  concerning  "  evan- 
gelists," we  shall  not  only  gain,  from  tlicir  abundant  general 
testimon}'^  in  favour  of  episcopacy,  infinitely  more  than  we  could 
possibly  lose  by  having  this  word  defined  by  them  against  us, 
but  M'e  shall  actually  have  their  authority  respecting  that  word 
in  our  favour.  A  commonly  received  definition,  founded  on  an 
nuperfect  extract  from  one  of  the  fathers,  Eusebius,  is  merely 
tliis — an  evangelist  was  appointed  "to  lay  the  foundations  of  the 
laith  in  barbarous  nations,  to  constitute  them  pastors,  and  hav- 
ing committed  to  them  the  cultivating  of  those  new  plantations, 
to  pass  on  to  other  countries  and  nations.""  All  this  is  indeed 
perfectly  consistent  M'ith  the  episcopal  theory,  since  such  an 
evangelist  may  be  a  missionary-bishop.  A  fuller  examination 
however  of  Eusebids  will  show  that  evangelists  did  not  merely 
found  new  churches,  but  bui'ded  also  those  founded  by  others — 
and  that  the  evangelists  he  speaks  of  in  the  place  quoted,  are 
declared  by  him  to  have  been  ordained  to  the  highest  grade  of 
the  ministry,  before  they  set  out  on  their  work.  We  extract 
the  whole  chapter,  except  a  few  concluding  lines  which  are 
irrelevant,  from  an  old  translation. 

"Chap,  xxxiii.  Of  the  Evanffeiisffi  then  ftourisliing'.  Among 
them  which  were  then  famous  was  Quadratus,  whom  they  say 
(together  with  the  daughters  of  Philip)  to  have  been  endued 
with  the  gift  of  prophesying.  And  many  others,  also,  at  the 
same  time  flourished,  which,  ohtaininrr  the  first  step^'  of  apos- 
tolical snccession.  and  being  as  divine  disciples  of  tlie  chief  and 
principal  men,  bnilded  the  churclu^s  every  where  planted  by 
the  Apostles :  and  preaching  and  sowing  the  celestial  seed  oi 
he  kingdom  of  heaven  throughout  the  world,  filled  the  barns  ol 


e  Acts  xxi.  8.     Epiics.  Iv.  11.     2  Tim.  iv.  5.  f  Sec  note  II, 

e  See  Db.  MiLLEn's  Letters,  p  94.  [p.  Gl,  2d  cd.\ 
n  In  iha  G(  sek  rafiv,  order,  rank,  station,  nppointmcnl. 


32  EPISCOPACY    TESTED    EV    SCRIk"''URE. 

God  Avith  increase.  For  the  greater  pan  ol  the  disciples  then 
living,  affected  with  great  zeal  towards  the  word  of  God,  first 
fulfilling  the  heavenly  commandment,  distributed  their  sub- 
stance unto  the  poor :  next,  taking  their  journey,  fulfilled  the 
Avork  and  office  of/7ran<rc/?.sts",  that  is,  tliey  preached  Christ  unto 
them  wliich  as  yet  heard  not  of  the  doctrine  of  faith,  and  pub- 
lished earnestly  the  doctrine  of  the  holy  gospel.  These  men 
having  planted  the  faith  in  sundry  new  and  strange  places. 
ordained  there  other  pastors,  committing  unto  them  the  tillage 
of  the  new  groimd,  and  tlie  oversiglit  of  such  as  were  latelj" 
converted  unto  the  faith,  passing  themselves  unto  other  people 
and  countries,  being  holpen  thereunto  by  the  grace  of  God 
which  wrought  witli  them:  for  as  yet  by  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  tliey  wrought  miraculoiisly,  so  that  an  innumerable  mul- 
titude of  men  embraced  the  religion  of  the  Almighty  God  at 
the  first  hearing,  with  prompt  and  willing  minds.  Insomuch 
that  it  is  impossible  to  rehearse  by  name,  when  and  who  were 
pastors  and  EvoMsrelists  in  the  first  succession  after  the  Apos- 
tles in  the  Churches  scattered  throughout  the  world  ;  it  shall 
seem  sufficient  only  to  commit  to  writing  and  memory,  the 
names  of  such  as  are  recorded  unto  us  by  tradition  from  the 
Apostles  themselves,  as  of  [o-natiiis  in  the  epistles  before  alleged 
and  of  Clemens,  mentioned  in  the  epistle  which  for  undoubted 
he  wrote  unto  the  Corinthians,  in  the  person  of  the  Roman 
Church,"  &c.! 

On  this  extract  several  remarks  may  be  made. — 1,  Eusebius 
here  describes  what  look  place  long  before  his  own  time,  and 
what  therefore  he  knew  but  imperfectly.'' — 2,  Evangelists,  he 
says,  did  the  stationary  work  of  "  building"  the  churches,  as 
well  as  tlie  migratory  one  of  '•  founding"  them ;  which  shows 
that  the  definition  of  that  title,  in  regard  to  the  question  whether 
it  necessariljr  implied  missionary  functions,  is  not  to  be  certainly 
made  out  from  the  fathers  any  more  than  from  Scripture :  for 
wliat  difference  is  there  between  a  stationary  Evangelist  and  a 
settled  minister  ? — 3,  The  Evangelists  spoken  of  by  Eusebius  are 
said  to  have  "  obtained  the  first  s*ep  [rank]  of  apostolical  suc- 
cession," 7.  e.  were  made  Bishops,  in  the  sense  of  that  word  in 
the  days  of  Eusebius,  and  ever  since  ;  which  shows  that  it  i^  a 
mistake  to  quote  his  account  of  Evangelists  in  favour  of  parity; 
those  alluded  to  by  him  were  Evangelist-bishops. — 4,  Those 
Evangelists  who  are  named  by  him  in  tins  extract,  were  all  pro- 
per Bishops.  Quadratus  was  Bishop  of  Athens.  Ignatius  was 
Bishop  of  Antiocli.  Clement  was  Bishop  of  Rome.  All  which 
is  recorded  in  this  same  work  of  Eusebius.' — 5,  Lest  it  be 
thought  that  his  expression,  "  the  greater  part  of  the  disciples 
then  living"  became  Evangelists,  makes  it  absurd  to  suppose 
them  all  Bishops,  let  it  be  remarked  that  he  speaks  of  the  rich 

i  Eusebius  Eccles.  Hist.  Lib.  III.  ch.  xxxiii.  being  ch.  xxxvii.  after  the  Greek. 
k  See  tlie  end  of  Lib.  VIL  and  the  beginning  of  Lib.  VII  I. 
lib.  III.  ch.  xix.  xxxi.  xxxii      Lib.  IV.  ch.  xxii. 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED   BY    SCRIP'tURE  33 

only  among  the  disciples,  since  of  none  but  these  wonM  he  ])ro 
bably  have  recorded  tliat  they  "  distributed  their  substance  to 
the  poor."  Yet  even  with  this  restricted  inter])rctati()n,  and 
much  more  Avhen  unrestricted,  tliis  expression  of  Eusebius  is 
majiniloqucnt  and  oratorical,  and  not  fit  to  be  the  basis  of  any 
argument  concerning  the  number  of  the  early  Evangelists. — 
t>,  Ecclesiastical  historians  sometimes  speak  of  a  person's  ordain- 
ing, who  did  not  perform  the  riie  himself,  but  had  it  done  by 
anothei  ;  as  the  historian  Socrates  says  of  tlie  emperor  Constan- 
tine,  "  when  he  iuid  budded  churches  among  them,  he  hastened 
to  consecrate  them  a  Bishop,  and  to  ordain  the  holy  company 
of  clergymen."™  If  it  be  thus  said  that  Conslantine  consecrated 
and  ordained,  though  he  only  employed  Bishops  to  do  so,  it  is 
competent  for  us  to  infer,  that  the  same  must  be  meant,  if  Euse- 
bius be  understood  to  say,  that  Evangelists,  not  of  the  highest 
ministerial  rank,  ordained  ;  they  only  ca/A.serZ  per.sons  to  be  or- 
dained by  ministers  of  that  rank.  The  fair  construction,  how- 
ever, of  his  language,  is — that  the  Evangelists  he  speaks  of  were 
tliemselves  of  that  highest  order.— 7,  Eusebius  was  a  thorougli 
Episcopalian,  in  the  sense  of  the  word  '•  Bisliop."  in  that  and  tlie 
present  day:  he  speaks  of  ordaining  by  Apostles  and  Bishops." 
and  is  full  of  the  "  successions"  of  various  lines  of  Bisiio])s  down 
from  tlie  Apostles."  If,  then,  he  was  consistent  v/ith  his  OM'n 
opinions,  he  cannot  mean  that  Evangelists  of  inferior  rank  or- 
dained, but  must  be  so  interpreted  as  not  to  violate  his  own  prin- 
ciples. If,  however,  he  be  inconsistent  with  himself,  when  he 
comes  to  speak  of  Evangelists,  his  authority  on  that  suljject  is, 
of  (;ourse,  nugatory.  But,  we  repeat,  he  is  not  inconsistent  \vA\i 
liimself,  if  construed  candidly,  r.  e.  according  to  his  own  princi- 
ples of  episcopacy,  in  regard  to  tliose  Evangelists  of  whom,  in 
the  passage  above  quoted,  he  writes.     Tliey  were  Bishv^ps. 

Tlie  otlier  persons  named  by  F^usebius,  in  his  history,  as  Evan 
gelists,  excepting  of  course  the  four  writers  of  the  gospels,  are, 
we  believe,  only  two.  One,  named  Thaddeus,  was  sent  by  tiie 
Apostle  Thomas  into  Edessa,  M'here  he  performed  miracles, 
preached,  and  ordained  :  but  he  is  himself  called  an  "  Apostle" 
many  times  in  this  work;P  which  decides  that  he  also  was  in 
tlie  liighest  order  of  the  ministry.  The  name  of  the  otlier  was 
l'anta?uus,  who  was  at  first  a  teacher  of  divinity  at  Alexandria, 
ii  Egypt.     The  following  is  recorded  of  him  :    "  Me  is  said  to 


gor 

M  EusEB.  Hist.  Lib.  VI  ch.  vii.  xlii.  Lib.  IL  ch.  i.  Lil..  III.  r.li.  xx.  Lit).  IV.cli. 
ziv. 

"  V'id,  I/ili.  HI.  cli.  iv — xi — xix — xxxii.  Lib.  IV.  ch.  v — xix.  Ijib.  V^.  ch.  xi.  Lib. 
VI.  oh.  ix.   Lit),  yn.  ch.  xxxi.    Lib.  Vm.  di.  i.  &<■.  &r.. 

p  Lib.  M.  ch.  i.  Lib.  I.  cli.  xiv.  ;  see  particularly  what  there  follows  nn  ejji.tle 
«ui'l  tc  have  been  wrillon  by  our  Saviour. 


34  EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE 

have  showed  such  a  willing  mind  towards  the  publishing  of  the 
doctrine  of  Christ,  that  he  became  a  preacher  of  the  Gospel 
imto  the  eastern  Gentiles,  and  was  sent  as  far  as  India.  For 
there  were,  I  say,  there  were  then  many  Evangelists,  prepared 
for  this  purpose,  to  promote  and  to  plant  the  heavenly  word 
with  godly  zeal,  after  the  gidse'i  of  the  Apostles.  Of  these 
Pantajnus,  being  one,  is  said  to  have  come  into  India."''  On  this 
extract,  which  we  believe  completes  the  evidence  on  the  subject 
before  us,  contained  in  Eusebius,  these  two  remarks  suggest 
themselves.  1.  It  is  not  said  that  this  Evangelist,  Panta^nus,  or- 
dained ;  he  may,  like  the  emperor  Constantine,  have  procured 
ordination  by  others  for  the  clergy  set  over  the  churches  he 
founded.  2.  Taking  for  granted  even  that  he  did  ordain,  we 
read  that  he  "  planted  the  heavenly  word  after  the  guise  of  the 
Apostles,''^  conforming  to  their  model  or  standard  ;  of  course  his 
ordinations  were  after  the  apostolical  example,  which  has  been 
fully  shown  in  the  above  essay,  and  was  certainly  believed  by 
Eusebius,  to  have  been  according  to  the  episcopal  scheme.  Such 
ordinations  he  could  not  have  performed  without  being  a  proper 
Bishop  himself. 

We  think  then  that  parity  gains  nothing  by  going  to  Eusebius 
for  an  account  of  the  office  and  powers  of  Evangelists.  On  the 
contrary,  the  gain,  such  as  it  is,  is  on  the  side  of  episcopacy. 

After  what  has  no^v  been  said,  no  impartial  person  will,  we 
tliink,  contend  that  Eusebius  meant  to  say  that  all  Evangelists 
(of  all  grades)  had  the  power  of  ordaining.  If,  however,  such 
a  proposition  be  maintained  concerning  this  father,  we  neutralize 
the  evidence  thus  claimed,  by  counter-evidence  of  the  same  kind, 
that  of  an  ancient  but  uninsured  author,  who,  in  conformity 
with  Scripture,  asserts  that  there  were  among  the  P^vangelists 
persons  who  had  no  right  to  ordain.  We  quote  from  Ham- 
mond:^— "For,  as  the  office  of  Evangelist,  being  to  preach  to 
unbelievers,  requires  not  the  donation  of  all  the  episcopal  powers, 
VIZ.  of  ruling,  nor  the  power  of  ordination  necessarily,  because 
when  the  Evangelist  hath  planted  tlie  faith,  the  Apostle  himself 
may  come  and  confirm,  and  ordain  Bishops,  as  we  see  in  Sama- 
ria, Acts  viii.  17.  (and  therefore  the  author  of  the  Commentaries 
on  the  Epistles  under  St.  Ambrose's  name,  saith  on  this  place, 
Qtcaiiivis  nan  sint  sacerdotes,  evangelizare  tamen  possimt  sine 
cathedra,  qitemadmodum  Stephanus  et  Philippus,  though  they 
be  not  pries-ts,  [that  is.  Bishops,]  yet  they  may  evangelize  with- 
out a  chair:)  so  the  donation  of  that  superior  power  doth  not 
yet  make  them  cease  to  be  Evangelists."  Stephen  and  Phihp, 
both  Deacons,  and  having  no  right  to  ordain,  or  to  occupy  tlie 
episcopal  "  chair,"  are  yet,  we  see,  reckoned  Evangelists  by  tliis 
writer.  Stephen,  who  we  know  died  a  Deacon,  is  called  by  him 
an  Evangelist.     And  Philip,  who  when  called  in  Scripture  ai/ 

q  uifiviinTa;,  conformity  to  a  motlcl,  example,  or  standard  ;  copy;  close  imitatioa. 
r  Lib.  V.  ch.  ix.  being  ch.  x.  in  tlie  Greek, 
s  Ou  Eplies.  iv   11:  note  b. 


EPISCOPACY  TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE. 


as 


Evangelist,  is  also  denominated  "  oiie  of  the  seven'^  rfeacotu^  is 
said  by  this  writer  to  have  been,  equally  with  Stephen,  "  withoiil 
a  chair"  of  sacerdotal  office.  This  then  is  uninspired  proof,  to 
be  added  to  tliat  of  revelation,  that  Evangelists  had  not,  u.rieiy 
as  such,  the  right  to  ordain.  And  taking  into  view  the  whole  oi 
this  sort  of  proof,  the  definition  which  we  quoted  above  fioiij  an 
eminent  Presbyterian  divine,  will,  we  think,  be  allowed  to  bt  MX 
this  lespect,  too  unqualified. 

This  appeal  to  the  fathers  has  been  made  only  to  meet  OIJI 
opponents  on  tlieir  own  ground,  in  their  attempt  to  define  fioin 
tliose  writings  a  word,  the  meaning  of  which  cannot  be  clraily 
made  out  from  Scripture.  "We  have  shown  that  Avhat  the  fallietg 
add  toAvards  its  elucidation,  is  entirely  in  our  favour. 

Returning  to  Scripture,  Me  conclude  with  yet  another  an?wei 
to  the  assertion  of  parity — that  the  superior  powers  of  Tinr  >ttjv, 
being  founded  on  his  being  an  "Evangelist,"  were  to  be  exej. 
cised  only  during  the  early  and  unsettled  state  of  the  Church  a 
Ephesus.  And  here  we  shall  take  the  case  according' to  parity '•3 
own  showing.  JMost  Presbyterian  controvertists  (as  also,  in  leed 
many  other  writers)  suppose  Timothy  to  have  been  placed  at 
Ephesus  so  early  as  at  the  sudden  departure  of  Paul  for  ]Mace- 
douia  after  the  riot  there.'  His  duty,  as  an  Evangelist,  was  (say 
anti-episcopalians)  to  settle  the  affiiirs  of  the  then  new  Church  in 
that  place.  If  so,  be  it  remembered,  he  soon  performed  one  part 
of  what  (they  say)  was  required  of  him  as  such  an  extraordina- 
ry  officer  ;  he  soon  ordained  Elders  in  tliat  city  or  region  which 
(they  say)  was  before  destitute  of  them ;  for  its  Elders  are  ad- 
dressed by  Paul  in  less  than  a  year  after  his  flight  from  Eplie- 
sus."  These  Elders,  be  it  next  remarked,  are  there  declared 
(they  say)  to  have  power  to  "rule"  tlie  flock  and  their  own 
•body,  besides  that  of  ordaining.  If  so,  the  government  of  tliat 
Church  was  fully  organized :  and  thus  was  fulfilled  the  othei 
part  of  the  function  of  Timothy,  as  a  special  and  extraordinary 
oflicer.  Of  course  that  extraordinary  ofilcer,  the  Evangelist, 
was  no  longer  required  ;  the  Ephesian  Church  had  obtained  a 
body  of  Elders,  competent,  if  any  such  body  is,  and  at  least  said 
by  parity  to  be  competent,  to  ordain  and  "  rule."  Nay.  Paul,  it 
is  alleged,  had  charged  these  Elders  to  "rule  the  Church  01 
God."  It  sufely  was  time  for  Timothy,  if  a  mere  Evangelist, 
to  "  pass  en  to  other  countries  and  nations." 

Now,  how  does  this  obvious  cessation  of  their  need  of  the  sup- 
p'ised  extraordinary  officer,  agree  with  the  undeniable  fact  that 
il.e  second  epistle  was  written  to  him  almost  seven  years  after 
tlu;  supposed  "date  of  his  being  placed  in  Eplic^sus,  and  more 
than  six  years  after  the  interview  of  Paid  witli  its  I'lders — tiiis 
same  'J'imothy  still  exercising  his  ecclesiastical  powers  in  that 
cuy  ?  In  the  second  epistle,  and  that  only — eleven  years  after 
the  first  preaching  of  Paul  in  Ephesus,"  more  than  nine  yeans 

t  Acte  xix.  23,  <&«. ;  xx.  1.     1  Tim.  i.  3.  u  Acts  zz.  17.         y  AcU  zviii.  19 


36  EPISCOPACV  TESTED  BY  SCRIPTURE. 

after  the  establishment  of  a  Christian  body  there  distinct  from 
the  Jews,"  nearly  seven  years  after  the,^i]pposed  commission  to 
Timothy  to  settle  tiieir  atTairs,  and  more  than  six  years  aftei 
Paul  addressed  their  Elders — in  that  late  second  epistle,  and  that 
only,  is  Timothy  called  an  "Evangelist,"  and  desired  to  "do  the 
work"  of  such  a  functionary.  That  is  (says  parity)  Timothy 
was  still  required  for  the  purpose  of  ordaining,"  althougli  there 
had  so  long  been  Elders  there  competent  to  ordain  !  Timothy 
(sa3  i«  parity)  was  still  required  for  the  governing  of  that  body 
of  oergy,  although  that  body  had  had,  for  so  considerable  a 
perio.d,  an  intiinsic  ecclesiastical  power  to  "  rule"  its  own  mem 
bers ! 

Js  il  not  obvious  then,  that  the  two  liypotheses  of  parity,  that 
conctrning  the  right  of  mere  Presbyters  to  ordain  and  govern, 
and  that  concerning  the  rights  of  Evangelists,  are  inconsistent 
with  each  other '?  The  Evangelist  Timothy  (they  are  forced  to 
say)  held  restrained  till  at  least  the  year  66,  the  power  to  "  rule," 
which  Paul  had  charged  the  Elders  to  exercise  in  the  year  60  ! 
Or  else,  they  must  say  that  the  Evangelist  Timothy  siipplanied, 
in  the  A^ear  66,  the  rights  of  the  Elders  who  had  been  planted  in 
Ephesua  by  the  same  Evangelist  Timothy,  in  the  year  59  or  60! 
May  we  not  ask,  when  did  he,  or  any  other  apostolical  man, 
plant  those  rights  again  ?  Does  not  the  scriptural  evidence  on 
these  points  leave  the  supposed  rights  of  Presbyters  either  with 
held  or  taken  from  them,  without  a  hint  that  the  restriction  oi 
depri\ation  was  afterwards  removed  ?  And  may  we  not  justly 
declare,  that  such  incongruities  in  the  best  theory  of  our  oppo- 
nents— for  they  certainly  have  none  better,  or  as  good — are 
something  very  like  an  aiisolute  disproof  of  parity,  and,  of 
course,  a    strong  indirect  proof  of  Episcopacy? 

w  Acts  xix.  9. 

X  III  the  second  epistle  to  Timothy,  as  well  as  in  the  first,  allusion  is  made  to  hja 
ordaining  power  ;  see  2  Tim.  ii.  2  :  r.nd  in  anotlior  place,  after  urijina;  liii!i  to  "do 
Ihe  work  ol'  un  Evangelist,"  the  Apostle  adds,  "make  full  |iroot'  [fidlil  all  the  puta] 
of  tliy  ministry,"  wliicL  of  course  included  ordaining.     2  Tim.  iv.  5. 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  37 


APPENDIX, 


NOTE  A— PAGE  12, 

Refer  to  Potter  on  C/M<rc/i  Government,  p.  113.  Amer.  edit,  and  to  the 
Protectant  Episcopalian,   No.  3.  p.  94. 

ViDEHUs,  a  iioi.-ejjiscopal  writer,  says  of  Clemens  Romanus,  mentioned 
in  Phi',  iv.  3.  that  alter  the  death  of  Linus  and  Cletus,  who  were  L'ishops 
of  Rome  Iwfore  liini,  "  Clemens  solus  Episcopi  nomen  retinuit  quia  jam, 
tnrali'.eral  distinctio  Episcopi  ct  Prcsbytcri — Clement  alone  retained  the 
name  of  IJishop,  bec^iuse  there  had  now  grown  into  use  the  distinction  be- 
tween Bishoi)  and  Presbyter."  Our  (juotation  is  Utken  from  the  answer  of 
Charles  I.  to  the  divines  who  argued  with  him  in  the  Isle  of  Wight,  p.  1 1 
and  il  shows  that  a  learned  non-c}iiscopalian  allowed  the  use  of  the  title 
Bishop,  as  iiaving  been  surrendered  by  a  portion  of  those  clergy  who  had 
formerly  enjoved  it,  and  made  superior  to  that  of  Presbyter,  to  have  been 
common  in  the  age  just  after  the  apostolic,  and  before  the  death  of  St.  John;* 
and  this  is  eijuivalcnt  to  the  assertion  of  Episcopalians,  that  that  title  waa 
very  early  talvcn  from  the  second  order  of  the  ministry,  and  approj)rialvd  to 
iIk;  highest,  wliich  liad  previously  been  called  Apostles. 

NOTE  B— PAGE  24. 

Our  argument  allows  the  word  "  feed"  to  bo  clianged  to  "  rule  ;"  but  thia 
is  mere  concession.  The  venerable  translators  have  given  the  true  meaning 
of  iroifinivw  as  adapted  to  the  passage  :  the  context  usually  deciding  the  choice 
between  the  several  meaninfrsofa  word.  In  Matt.  ii.  ti.  the  word  "govern 
or,"  and  in  Rev.  ii.  27.  xii.  5.  and  xix.  15,  the  jjhrase  "  rod  [sceptre]  of  iron," 
point  to  the  ruling  power  of  a  she[)lierd.  But  in  the  present  passage  "  tiock" 
is  the  proper  defining  word  in  the  context;  and  "  feed"  is  its  correlative.  II 
it  be  alleged  that  "  overseers"  is  the  definmg  wonl,  we  answer,  that,  as  a 
literal  shepherd  is  never  called  in  Scripture  an  "overseer"  £»((ncoiro{,  the  de- 
fining function  belongs  more  api>ropriately  to  the  word  "  flock,"  as  required 
by  the  congruity  of  figurative  language:  we  further  answer,  that  the  mean- 
ing of  "overseers,"  allowing  it  to  be  the  defining  word  for  itotitaivia, 
comes  short  of  the  idea  of  jiroper  "ruling"  or  su])reme  government,  and 
agrees  bettor  with  that  of"  feeding"  or  tending  a  flock.  The  word  "  tend" 
wouKl  be  a  sound  translation. — Let  those  who  contend  for  the  word  "  rule" 
in  this  place,  consider  what  eflect  it  might  have  on  our  controversy  with 
Rome  to  allow  the  same  word  in  John  xxi.  K!,  where  Jesl's  says  to  I'eter 
"feed  [rule]  my  sheep."  \{' Tto:naiv<i>  may  be  translated  "rule"  without  au- 
thority from  the  cortext,  it  may  be  s  >  rendered  in  the  latter  passage.  If, 
however,  tiiis  arbitrary  mode  of  translation  be  disallowed,  rule  cannot  be 
v.hat  Paul  meant  Ln  addressing  the  Kldc-rs  of  E|)liesus. 

Campuei-i.  translates  J-.'hn  xxi.  l(j.  '■'■lend  my  sheep,"and  has  an  eoccellcnt 
note.  Bkz  \  has  pasce  "feed,"  both  there  nm\  {pasccndam)\n  Acts  xx  28. 
C./(LviN  and  Ekasmus  give  pascc  "feed"  in  the  former,  but  use  tlie  strong 

*  Clciiirnt  siicccpdf/l  as  Bishop  of  Rome,  A.  D.  91  ;  St.  John  died  A.  D.  100.  Seo 
Calmkt's  Dictionary 

4 


38  EPISCOPACY  TESTED  BY  SCRIPTUHE. 

word  regendam  "  govern,''  in  tne  latter ;  which  was  either  a  great  oversight 
or  a  great  inconsistency. 

Observe  especially  this  further  consideration.  When  the  Romanists  urge 
that,  in  </ieir  sense,  Peter  was  to  "rule"  Christ's  sheep,  we  answer,  that 
this  notion  is  l'u!!y  disproved  by  other  Scriptures ;  as,  Paul's  withstaiiding 
Peter  to  the  face,  and  Jaiiics'  presiding  in  a  council  held  at  Jerusalem,  though 
Peter  was  present.  (Gal.  ii.  1 1.  Acts  xv.  13,  19.)  And  when  the  advo- 
cates of  parity  assert,  that,  in  f/ieir  sense,  the  Elders  "ruled"  at  E[)hesus,  we 
give  them  an  answer  precisely  analogous  ;  other  Scriptures  contradict  that 
notion,  as  is  especially  seen  in  botJi  the  epistles  to  Timothy,  as  also  in  those 
to  Titus  and  the  "angels"  of  the  seven  Churches.  The  word  "feed"  there- 
lore  (or  "tend")  is  clearly  the  proper  one  in  both  passages  :  neither  the  Pope 
nor  Presbyters  have  a  right  to  the  rule  wliich  they  respectively  claim. 

NOTE  C— PAGE  27. 

Ih  the  epistles  to  the  "angels"  of  the  Churches  in  Smyrna  and  Thyatira, 
(Rev.  ii.)  there  is  a  change  from  the  singular  to  the  plural  number.  This 
we  Episcopalians  say,  marks  a  transition  of  the  address,  i'rom  the  angel  or 
Bishop,  to  his  Church  generally  ;  but  parity  often  alleges  that  these  examples 
of  the  plural  number  show  the  entire  epistles  to  have  been  intended  for  each 
whole  Church ;  and  thus,  it  is  supposed,  the  idea  is  refuted  that  these  seven 
epistles  were  meaiit  for  the  angels  or  Bishops,  distinctively  and  individually. 
But  the  same  change  in  the  mode  of  address  occurs  in  the  epistle  of  Ignatius 
to  Polycarp,  Bishop  of  the  same  Church  at  Smyrna ;  as  will  be  seen  by  a 
reference  to  Archbishop  Wake's  Translation  of  the  Apostolical  Fathers,  t^ 
228,  American  edit. ;  or  Dr.  Cooke's  Essay,  p.  xxiii.*  In  the  first  four  para- 
graphs, Ignatius  addresses  Polycarp  personally  and  exclusively.  In  the  fifth 
he  sends  a  message,  through  Polycarp,  to  the  "  sisters"  and  the  "  brethren." 
But  in  the  sixth  he  bursts  forth  directly  to  the  Church  of  Smyrna,  the  flock 
at  large — "  Hearken  unto  the  Bishop,  that  God  also  may  hearken  unto  you. 
My  soul  be  security  for  them  that  submit  to  their  Bishop,  with  their  Presby- 
ters and  Deacons.     And  may  my  portion  be  together  with  theirs  in  God. 

Labour  with  one  another,  contend  together,  run  together Ix-t  none  of 

you  be  found  a  deserter Be  long-suflcring  therefore  toward  each  other 

in  meekness,  as  God  is  towards  you."  The  paragraphs  following  are  ad- 
dressed to  Polycarp,  like  the  first  ibur.  Now,  no  one  doubts  that  this  epistle 
was  directed  to  one  individual,  Polycarp,  and  that  the  greater  part  of  ii  related 
to  him  personally,  or  in  the  sacred  ofhco  which  he  held  ;  those  even  who  deny 
its  authenticity  must  allow  that  it  is  fabricated  on  this  principle :  yet  the  whole 
of  the  people  are,  in  the  very  body  of  the  eiastle,  addressed  directly  by  Igna- 
tius. Such  an  episode  then  is  no  violence  to  the  main  current  of  such  a 
writing  ;  it  was  not,  in  that  age,  deemed  absurd  or  incongruous.  An  address 
to  the  flock  does  not  vitiate  the  address  to  their  Bishop  in  which  it  occurs. 
This  answers  the  only  real  objection  to  the  episcopal  construction  of  the 
epistles  to  the  seven  "angels." 

It  may  be  here  added,  that,  in  the  second  epistle  of  St.  John,  the  address 
is  twice  changed  from  the  plural  number  to  the  singular ;  part  of  it  beiing 
addressed  to  the  "  elect  lady"  particularly,  and  part  to  her  and  her  children 
iointly. 

The  inscription  and  the  conclusion  of  the  epistle  to  Pliilemon  are  ad- 
dressed to  several  persons  and  a  Church  ;  the  body  of  the  epistle  is  addressed 
to  Philemon,  and  intended  for  him  exclusively. 

In  Philip,  iv.  2,  .3.  are  (Urect  addresses  to  individuals,  occuning  witliin  the 
body  of  an  epistle  to  a  whole  Church. 

*  See  page  401,  second  edition. 


EPISCOPACf   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  39 

NOTE  D— PAGE  28. 

Episcopacy  Permanent. 

'Scriptural  proof  having  been  given  for  episcopacy,  clown  to  tlie  latest  date 
of  the  inspired  canon,  and  it  having  been  also  sliown  that  no  oilier  ministry 
IS  set  forth  in  the  New-Testament,  all  is  done  that  was  proposed  in  the  be- 
ginning of  this  essay.  It  will  not,  however,  be  improper  to  add  a  tew  more 
remarks  concerning  its  permanent  obligation.  Some  allege  that,  though  aa 
the  only  scriptural  model  it  was  binding  in  the  first  ages,  it  does  not  follow 
that  it  continues  binding  through  the  whole  Christian  dis|)ensation.  To 
this  allegation  we  thus  reply  : — 1.  It  resemoles  that  of  the  denomination  of 
Friends  concerning  the  sacraments,  that  their  outward  signs  were  intended 
for  onlv  the  early  Christians,  not  for  our  later  periods.  There  is  no  stronger 
intimation,  we  behcve,  that  visible  sacraments  were  to  be  perpetual,  than 
that  the  ministry  established  by  the  Apostles  was  to  be  so  :  the  expression, 
concerning  the  Lohd's  Supper,  "ye  do  show  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come," 
hems,  no  stronger  than  the  charge  to  Timothy  (and  every  succeeding  minis- 
ter of  his  rank)  to  "keep  the  commandment"  or  trust  committed  to  hini 
"till  the  appearing  cf  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  (I  Cor.  xi.  "iO.  1  Tim. 
vi.  14.)  The  answer  to  this  error  concerning  the  sacraments  is  or  includes 
an  answer  to  the  supposition  before  us,  that  epi.'Scopacy,  though  having 
inspired  authority  at  first,  was  j-et  of  only  transient  obligation.  This  answer 
to  the  mistaken  opinion  concerning  the  sacraments  we  need  not  here  detail,  as 
those  we  now  address  unite  with  us  in  deeming  it  sufficient. — 2.  If  it  be  allow- 
ed, of  any  two  ministries  now  existing,  that  the  one  is  based  on  Scripture,  and 
the  ether  not,  no  sound  mind,  we  think,  will  deny  that  the  former  is  obligatory 
to  the  exclusion  of  the  latter. — 3.  When  our  Saviour,  after  finally  commis 
sioning  his  Apostles,  added  "  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  to  the  end  of  the 
world,"  (Matt,  xxviii.  20.J  he  meant  that  He  would  always  be  with  the 
ajwstolic  ministry.  This  is  affirmed  by  sound  Presbyterians,  as  well  as  by 
ourselves.  And  the  declaration  proves  that  that  ministry  was  to  exercise  its 
Logo's  authority  in  the  Church  to  the  end  of  the  world.  That  ministr)',  the 
apostolic  or  scriptural  one,  we  have  demonstrated,  and  is  allowed  by  the  per- 
sons with  whom  we  now  argue,  to  have  been  ej)iscopal.  Can  it  then  be  ima- 
gined by  those  who  are  thus  far  with  us,  that  any  ministry  subsequently  esta- 
blished has  the  Saviour's  authority  1  If  not, then  the  position  cannot  be  evaded, 
that  episcopacy  is  pennanently  binding,  "  even  to  the  end  of  the  world."  — 
4.  The  epistles  to  Timothy  are  said  by  parity  to  be  intended  for  all  ministers 
in  all  ages.  Episcopalians  say  that,  besides  being  addressed  to  him  as  the 
ckiej" minister  slI  Ephesus,  they  Averc  intended  for  the  direction  of  all  other 
chief  ministers,  by  us  called  Bishops ;  and  this,  we  presume,  is  allowed  by 
these  for  whom  this  note  is  written.  We  now  make  the  more  explicit  state- 
ment, that  these  epistles  arc  for  the  direction  of  Bi.shops  in  all  ag-es.  This 
assertion  is  proved  by  the  injimction,  before  quoted,  to  fulfil  their  trust  "  till 
the  appearing  of  Jesus  Christ  ;"  and  particularly  by  there  being  pa.ssages  in 
them  which  speak  of "  the  latter  times"  and  "the  last  days."  (1  Tim.  iv. 
2  Tim.  iii.)  These  periods,  as  distinguished  by  the  evils  that  w.'-re  to  attend 
them,  did  not,  we  think,  begin  during  the  life  of  Timothy ;  for  what  the 
Apostle  writes  concerning  them  is  in  the  future  tense,  "in  the  last  days, 
perilous  titnes  shall  come,"  (fcc.  And  it  has  been  well  remarked,  that,  though 
the  vices  there  mentioned  have  always  existed  in  the  world,  their  being 
sjioken  of  as  characteristic  of  the  latter  days  implies,  that  besides  being  coin- 
Dion,  they  would  be  openly  avowed  and  defended;  which  cannot  he  said 
of  the  primitive  Church.  Hut  lu'irin '•  the  last  days"  and  their  miscliicf* 
when  they  uiiyht,  they  have  not  ended  yet;  jieither,  of  course,  is  the  obli 


40  EPIHCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE. 

gation  respecting  them,  imposed  on  Bishops  by  these  epistles,  ended;  nor  is 
the  consequent  oblijiation  of  Christians  ended,  to  sup-port  bishops  in  these 
their  duties,  i.  e.  to  conform  to  episcopacy  ;  non-conformity  being  opposition, 
either  active  or  passive.  And  thus  episcopacy  hud  and  has  authority  tlirough 
all  these  periods ;  its  authority  is  permanent,  down  to  the  present  age  of  the 
■world.  One  direction,  grouniled  on  latter-day  defections,  is  particularly  wor- 
thy of  notice ;  "  from  such  turn  fthou]  away,"  or  as  otherwise  translated, 
"  such  turn  [thou]  away."  (2  Tim.  iii.  5.  See  M'Knight.)  In  the  former 
sense,  the  jiassage  recognises  an  authoritative  discountenance  or  rejection  ol 
falsi!  teachers,  or  of  false  flocks  with  their  teachers,  to  be  exercised  by  an 
individual  church  officer  "  in  the  last  days."  In  the  latter  sense,  it  recog- 
nizes, more  explicitly,  the  power  of  excommiinicatiriff  such  persons,  as 
residing  in  such  an  individual  officer,  in  these  periods.  In  either  sense,  epis- 
copa.-y  is  recognized,  as  existing  and  having  authority  "in  the  last  days" — 
in  other  words,  as  a  permanent  institution,  and  of  permanent  obligation. 

NOTE  E— PAGE  28. 
T'he  Plea  of  Necessity. 

It  IS  due  to  our  discussion,  to  add  a  few  remarks  on  the  question — whether 
ncr.'-.'.-iity  will  Justify  a  departure  from  the  apostolical  or  scriptural  ministry, 
or  the  irstituting  of  a  new  ministry  where  that  cannot  be  obtained  1  On  this 
subject,  the  lirst  point  to  be  determined  is,  what  is  '  necessity'  1 — '  Absolute 
necessity'  to  assume  the  functions  of  the  ministry  never  can  exist;  salvation 
is  not  indissolubly  connected  with  the  offices  of  a  pastor  ;  the  sacraments  are 
not  absolutelj',  but  only  "generally  necessary  tosalvalion,"  those  who  cannot 
ol)tain  them  not  being  required  topartakeofthera. — Difficulties  long  insupera- 
ble, preventing  the  attainment  of  an  important  object,  form  the  next  spcciei 
of  '  necessity,'  and  that  which  is  usually  referred  to  i;i  this  argument.  AnJ 
here  several  questions  arise — are  thedifficuhies  insuperable — have  they  been 
lo)ig  insuperable— is  the  object  so  important  as  to  justify  deviation  fioin  an 
institution  allowed  to  be  divine  7  There  should  he  no  reasonable  doubt  on 
either  of  these  points. 

In  ourojiinion,  the  last  of  the  above  questions  can  never  be  justly  answered 
in  the  allirmativc ;  no  plea  can  be  strong  enough  to  release  us  from  divine 
appointments.  What  Goo  has  instituted  for  his  Church  he  will  preserve  irf 
his  Church,  and  ditruse  though  it,  till  the  institution  be  abrogated  by  him.  oi 
is  about  to  be  so.  This  appears  to  us  so  clear  a  dictate  of  faith,  so  funda- 
mental a  religious  truth,  that  we  will  not  argue  for  it;  it  is  an  axiom,  or  ai 
least  an  undeniable  postulate.  And  it  ought  to  settle  the  whole  matter.  Bui 
we  shall  carry  the  discussion  through. 

As  then  to  the  other  two  questions — we  doubt  whether  the  difliculty  of  ob 
taining  an  apostolic  ministry,  has  ever  been  insuperable  for  any  greater  period 
than  might  naturally  and  fairly  be  allowed  for  the  jmrpose — and  we  denj 
that  the  difficulties,  be  they  what  they  might,  have  ever  been  loyig  insupera 
ble.  And  thus  far,  having  used  only  the  phrase  apostolical  or  scriptural 
ministry,  we  supjjose  that  Parity  agrees  with  us. 

We  now  icmiiid  our  readers  that  we  have,  in  our  essay,  proved  the  apos- 
lolical  ministry  to  be  episcopacy.  And,  to  come  at  once  to  the  great  case, 
we  think  it  doubtful  whetiier  Luther  and  his  associates,  and  Calvin  and  his 
associates,  were  prevented  from  obtaining  episcopacy  by  difficulties  .strictly 
insuperable.  It  is  well  known  to  those  acquamted  with  ecclesiastical  his- 
tory, tliat  Novatian,  a  schismatic  Bishop,  induced  three  obscure  Bishops  to 
consecrate  him  :*  and    among  the  multitude  of  papal  Bishops,  could  not 


♦  MiLNEH,  Vol.  I.  p.  351.  and  Eusebius,  Book  6. 


EPISCOrACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTDRE.  41 

Ihose  Reformers  have  found  three,  clevatril  or  obscure,  to  give  them  the  sue- 
cessirii,  or  t'\se  to  join  witli  tlieni,  and  (iresklc  over  t!icir  i)Urilied  Cluiroh  ? 
and  this,  without  rcsortiiiir  to  the  culpable  inetliods  ascribed  to  Novatian  1 
if  this  was  not  clearly  ini|iracticable,  our  present  argument  has  all  that  it 
asks  Attain :  it  is  known  to  the  readers  of  church  iiislory,  that  Kruineii- 
tiu>,  atler  colliH-tiniT  to<4etlier  a  few  Christians  in  India  (jierliaps  Abyssinia,] 
and  con\ertiniisoine  of  the  natives,  ap|)licd  to  Alhanasius,  Ijishop  of  Alexan- 
dria in  Fgvpt,  for  a  Bishop  to  govern  them,  and  ordain  pastors  for  tliem  •* 
and  could  net  the  Reformers  alluded  to,  failing  with  Romish  Kisiiops,  have 
gone  or  sent,  to  the  Greek,  or  other  Eastern  ciiurches,  for  the  episcopal  suc- 
cession ?  did  thev  ever  make  the  experiment  I  Yet  again  :  it  is  recorded, 
that  the  Bohemian  Church  obtaincrl  episcopacy  from  the  VValdenses  :t  and 
coultl  not  the  Reformers  aL<ove  mentioned  have  obtained  it  from  either 
the  Waldcnses  or  the  Bohemian  fraternity  1  did  they  attempt  to  do  so, 
although  these  Christian  communities  were  as  much  opposed  to  tlie  Poiie 
as  themselves  I  In  fine  :  Did  either  of  those  Reformers  use  any  eJforts 
whatever  for  this  purpose  !  if  not,  how  can  the  dilhculty  be  called  insupera- 
ble !  or  how  can  it  be  made  the  basis  of  the  plea  of  necessity  7  Now,  he  it 
recollected,  we  quesUon  not  the  motives  of  these  eminent  servants  ofttuo; 
we  In-lieve  them  to  have  been  pure;  hut,  on  that  point,  they  and  we  sUiU.l 
or  fall  onlv  to  our  common  master;  motives  have  nothing  to  do  with  the 
claims  of  truth.  All  that  we  assert  is,  that  l)e  the  difficulties  what  they  might 
in  unx-urinfiT  episcopacy,  it  is  doubtful  whether  they  were  insuperable;  and 
that  if  thev  were  not  insuperable,  the  case  of  '  necessity  '  did  not  exist.  We 
may  indeed  carry  this  part  of  our  argunient  yet  further,  and  ask,  wlieiher 
anil  ditlicultv  of' magnitude  can  be  alleued— if  we  may  draw,  from  the  fol- 
lowing quotations  from  Milner.  the  conclusion,  that  Bishops  so  friendly  to 
Lutht'T  would  have  consecrated  him  ?  "  .  .  .  .  John  Thurzo,  Kishoi>  of  Bres- 
law  in  Silesi:).  This  jrood  [)relate  was  descended  from  a  noble  family  in 
liuncary,  and  is  said  to  have  been  the  very  first  papal  Bishop  who,  in  his<lio- 

cese,^Wiis  favourable  to  the  revivn-1  of  pure  Christianity Luther,  on  the  , 

occa.-^ion  of  I'.is  decease,  says  in  a  letter  to  a  friend,  'in  this  tiiith  died  Jolin 
Thurzo,  I5ishop  of  Bresiaw,  of  all  the  Bishops  of  this  age  the  very  best.'  " 
"The  pious  Thurzo  died  in  Avigust,  15"J0;  but  the  retbrniation  does  not 
apijear  to  have  materially  suffered  from  this  loss.  His  successor,  James 
of  Saltz.1,  trode  in  his  steps.  This  Bishop  appointed  ....  John  Hesse  .... 
a  dear  friend  of  Luther,  to  preach  the  gospel  in  the  church  of  St.  M.  .Magdilcn 
at  Bresiaw.  Hesse  not  oidy  explain'-d  and  enforced  the  great  truths  of  Cliris- 
lianity  from  the  pulpit,  but  for  eight  days  togetlier,  iti  a  public  ilispulation, 
defended  the  same,  and  expo.-^ed  the  papal  dogmas  concerning  t!ie  mass  and 
the  celibacy  of  t'he  clergv"t — 'o  the  joy  of  i^uther,  and  the  vexation  of  the 
Po|)e.  Bishops  thus  friendly  to  Luther  and  his  cause,  wid  thus  ajjpo-nting 
to  a  conspicuous  station  one  of  his  dear  and  zealous  friends — could  they  not 
hrive  been  |)revailed  on  to  consecrate  him  ?  They  were,  of  cours.-,  under  tile 
uiiual  ()romiscs  of  fidelity  to  the  Romish  Church  ;  hut  these  couVl  have  been 
no  stronger  in  their  i)articular  cases,  no  more  binding,  than  those  of  all  the 
fir»l  i{eformers,  whither  Bishops  or  Fresbyters;  who  all  lield  such  (ibiigations 
to  lie  dissolved,  when  they  came  to  perceive  that  tl:e  vital  corruptions  inflexilily 
inairitaini'd  by  that  Church  rccjuircd  tlicir  separation  from  it.  We  therefore 
Biir^est  the  douot,  wh'thcr  there  was  «/!y  difliculty  of  UKiJ'nituJc  in  the  way 
of  Luther  s  obtainiiig  episcopacy  for  his  Church. 

•  SocnATES,  B.  \.  c.  xix.  and  Milner, Vol.  11.  p.  1 10. 

+  Comin.niiis,  ((iiotd   in  B  iWOE.s-s  Lclteis,  Vol  II.   p.  79.     Vol,  III.  332,  343 
[Vol.  Lp.  2i!3.     II.  p   lC,:i, -id  eJ.] 
t  MlLNEB,  Vol.  V  o.  250,  20O  . 


42  EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE. 

The  above  considerations  render  almost  unnecessary  a  notice  of  our  remain 
ing  propvjsition — that  insuperable  dilficullics  did  not  long  exist.  We  pro 
coed  however  to  the  proof,  l.uther  separated  from  the  Churcli  of  Rome  in 
1520  ;  the  protest  on  which  the  name  Protestant  was  founded,  was  made  in 
1529;  the  Confession  of  Augsburgh  dates  1530.*  Now,  to  say  notliing  o) 
the  possihihty  of  getting  the  episcopal  succes.sion  in  England  under  Henry 
Vin,  who  died  in  1517,  or  under  Edward  VI,  the  Church  in  Sweden  waa 
fullv  reformed  in  1527,  and  that  in  Denmark,  in  1539  ;+  both  were  reformed 
uncier  Lutheran  influence  ;  and  both  retained  episcopacy.  "Will  then  any 
considerate  person  deny,  tliat,  had  efforts  been  made,  the  succession  might 
have  been  obtained  from  Sweden  not  "long"  after  Luther  abjured  the  papal 
authority,  and  before  the  period  when  tlie  name  Protestant  and  the  Augs- 
burgh Corifession  gave  the  finish  to  tlie  Lutheran  Church  1  Or,  if  that  Church 
had  obtained  episcojjacy  ten  years  afterwards,  when  Denmark  could  have 
given  it  to  tliem,  would  thai  hive  been  T?£dting  "long"  for  a  divine  institu- 
tion! Where  then  is  the  evidjtr.ce  on  which  the  plea  of  'necessity'  is 
grounded ! — Let  the  reader  be  reminded,  that  we  are  not  discussing,  in  this 
note,  the  claims  of  the  ministry  which  those  great  reformers  establislied  ;  that 
is  done  in  our  essay.  Neither  are  we  arguing  here  with  those  who  deny 
e[iiscopacy  to  be  a  scriptural  institution ;  they  have  no  occasion  for  the  plea 
of  '  necessity.'  Neither  do  we  now  touch  the  question,  whether  this  point  of 
external  order  is  of  imjwrtance  ;  on  that  suhject,  our  essay  has,  we  presume, 
said  enough ;  and  those  who  plead  '  necessity'  allow,  by  so  doing,  the  im- 
portance of  the  rule  departed  from  on  that  account.  The  present  note  is 
intended  for  those  who  grant  the  apostolic  origin  of  episcojjacy,  and  its  obli- 
gation, except  in  the  one  case  of '  necessity,'  reasonably  delined.  And  to 
these  we  say,  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  such  'necessity,'  concerning  the 
point  before  us,  has  ever  existed. 

On  the  subject  of  ^supposed  necessity'  (supposed  by  the  persons  originally 
concerned)  it  is  impossible  to  argue,  because  the  case  cannot  be  dethied ; 
.one  person  calling  that  '  necessity'  which  another  denies  to  be  so.  When 
the  dilficultv  appears  great,  those  who  yield  to  it  are,  we  doubt  not,  excused 
iiy  a  merciful  God  ;  and  they  ought  to  be  fully  and  readily  excused  by  men. 
But  this  mild  judgment  of  perso?ji- does  not  establish  either  the  correctness 
of  tlieir  opinions,  or  the  validity  of  their  acts. 

Least  of  all,  can  the  '  su{)posed  necessity'  which  may  formerly  have  led  to 
a  deviation  from  divine  institutions,  be  a  sound  plea  for  persevering  in  that 
deviation  after  the  '  suj)posed  necessity'  has  ceased.  It  has  now  been  shown, 
we  think,  that  there  never  was  any  real '  necessity'  for  dispensing  with  ejiis- 
copacy.  But,  allowing  for  former  periods  all  that  is  ever  claimed  on  that 
score,  there  has  been  no  ditHculty  at  all  in  procuring  a  protestant  episcopate, 
or  else  in  finding  one  to  conform  to  and  unite  with,  since  the  Scotch  Bishojm 
consecrated  Bishop  Seabury,  the  first  on  our  American  list. 

NOTE   F— PAGE^. 

The  great  petitio  principii  of  our  opponents  is,  that  the  whole  apostolic 
function,  as  distinguished  from  that  of  Presbyters,  was  transient.  Fortius 
supposition,  there  is  neither  proof  nor  hint  in  Scripture.  Insjiiration  was 
transient ;  but  in  no  other  respect  can  the  apostleship  be  shown  to/liave 
lost  Its  original  completeness.  TLnothy,  Andronicus,  and  Junia,  are  called 
Apostlrrs  ;  but  there  is  no  evidence  that  they  were  inspired ;  and  though 
Bilvanus,  also  denominated  an  Apostle,  was  a  "prophet"  (Acts  xv.  32.)  it 

*  MosHKiM,  Vol.  IV.  p.  50,  71,  89.  t  Ihitl,  Vol.  V.  ji.  TO,  82. 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  43 

Will  be  allowed,  we  presume,  that  tliis  does  not  iniyily  that  he  possessetl  the 
hiijiii^r  lnsi)iratio)i  of  the  more  eminent  ai)ostolic  fraternity. 

Of  the  sopiiisni  here  censured,  there  are  many  lesser  exemplifications  in 
the  arifument  of  Parity,  as  may  he  seen  ni  the  following  statement. 

Parity  never  can  prove,  but  always  takes  for  granted  one  or  more  of  the 
followinij  point.s — 1.  that  because  the  name  "  Bishop"  is  applied,  in  Scri()ture, 
to  the  second  order  of  the  ministry,  there  is  no  liiijher  order  there  mentioned 
— 2.  that  the  transaction  in  Acts  xiii.  was  the  ordination  of  Barnabas  and 
Saul — 3.  that  the  word  "  presbytery"  means,  not  an  office,  but  a  body  of 
Elders,  and — 1.  of  Elders  strictly,  without  an  Apostle,  or — 5.  if  an  Apostle 
was  with  them,  that  he  had  no  more  ordaining  power  than  they — 6.  that 
evanireli.^ts  had,  as  such,  supreme  power  over  new  churches  and  their  clergy — 
7.  that  no  individuais  but  the  pro[)er  Apostles  Jiad  such  authority  over 
churches  and  their  clergy  after  their  atlliirs  were  settled — 8.  that  the  epvstles 
to  Timothy  vere  meant  for  all  the  clergy  in  Ephesus — 9.  that  Timothy  had 
supreme  authority  in  Ephesus  only  as  an  evangelist,  not  as  an  A|)Ostle,  or  as 
such  a  successor  of  the  Apostles  as  was  afterwards  called  a  Bishop — 10.  that 
Titus  wa-s  an  evangelist — 11.  that  each  of  the  seven  Churches  of  Asia  con- 
sisted of  but  one  congregation — 12.  that  the  "angels"  were  but  pastors  of 
single  congregation" — 13.  that  they  were  but  moderators  of  bodies  of  Presby- 
ters, &c.  &c.  So  of  these  points  are  akvays  taken  for  granted,  in  the 
anti-episcopal  argi  uit  intended  to  rest  on  the  basis  of  Scripture.  We  deny 
them  all,  and  aver  that  Scripture  furnishes  no  evidence,  less  or  greater, 
Jirect  or  indirect,  towards  substantiating  them. 

NOTE    G-PAGE  29. 

On  the  objection — that  monarchy,  as  much  as  episcopacy,   is  set  forth  in 
Scripture. 

It  has  been  alleged,  that  as  clear  authority  is  found  in  Scripture  for  mo- 
narchical governuieiit  and  its  perpetuity,  as  i()r  cpisco|)acy  and  its  perpetuity, 

"sul)mit  yourselves  to the  king  as  suj)reme,"  (1  Pet.  ii.    13.)  being 

as  sl-)-ong  a  precept  as  "  submit  your.selves  to  them  that  watch  for  your  souls," 
which  we  have  a[)plied  to  the  ejiiscopal  ministry  set  forth  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. This  allegation,  however,  is  easily  refuted. — 1.  Where  it  is  said 
that  the  king  or  Koman  emperor  was  supreme,  it  is  also  declared  that  this 
Was  the  ordinance  of  ttiisti  ;  and  it  is  because  it  was  "  the  ordinance  of  man" 
that  submis.sion  to  the  em[)eror  was  enjoini-d.  The  ollice  w;is  "the  creation 
(<rr«r£i)  of  man."  Of  course,  man  may  change  that  office  ibr  another,  and 
thus  substitute  a  republican  for  a  royal  or  iuiperial  government.  But  the 
Christian  ministry  is  the  ap})oir  mient  or  creation  of  God  ;  so,  at  least,  parity 
believes  as  well  a.s  we ;  and  with  [jarity  is  our  controversy,  not  with  the 
fd'lile  claim  of  lay  orders,  or  the  creation  of  mini.sters  by  mere  human  au- 
thority. To  pupjwse  the  ordinance  of  man,  because  recognized  and  eiiiuined 
in  Scripture,  to  be  as  perpetually  binding  as  the  ortlinance  of  Cioi>,  tiiere 
re<-()grii7.ed  and  enjoined,  and  not  retracted,  is,  we  thinT^,  absurd. — 2.  Should 
it  be  further  obj^'Cted  that  "the  powers  that  be"  are  declared  to  be  "ordained 
of  (ioD;"  (Rom.  xiii.  1.)  we  answer,  that  nothing  is  here  mentioned  of  kings 
but  only  of  "the  higher  powers,"  and  that,  unlike  some  of  the  i>roviiieial 
peo]ile,  the  Romans,  to  whom  tliat  language  was  addressed,  abhorred  the 
title  nf  kins;*  which  circum.«tances  shew,  indepcmleiillv  of  other  considera 
tions,  that  it  is  not  to  \tc  taken  for  granted  that  mere  monan-hic^d  "ijowcrs" 
wer<!  meant  in  this  passage.     But  besides  this :  It  could  not  have  been  u  cant 

•  Sijj  Poole's  Synopsis  on  1  Pel.  ii.  13.  and  M'Knioht  on  do. 


44  EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE. 

that  the  then  existing;  Roman  authorities  were  ordained  of  God  for  perpetuity^ 
for  both  projjhccy  (Dun.  vii.  2(3.  2  Thess.  ii  7.)  and  history  attest  the  con- 
trary ;  wiiich  propiiecy  is  scriptural  proof  against  that  interprction.  Neither 
were  the  then  existing  "  |)Owers"  beijond  the  1-loaian  empire  ordained  to  be 
perpetual.  They  were  all,  therefore,  ordained  of  Gop  in  only  this  lower 
sense — to  serve  the  (lurjjose  of  civil  government  while  they  should  resi)ect 
ivelv  last.  In  our  opinon,  "  the  powers  that  be"  means '  tlie  established  civil  au- 
thorities that  at  any  time  exist ;'  submission  to  these  is  made  binding  on  Chiit- 
tians  by  the  Christian  law;  just  revolutions,  as  incidental  to  every  ordinance 
or  creation  of  man,  being  exceptions  to  this  rule.  The  object  of  such  [)a3S- 
ages  is,  we  think,  to  consecrate  the  social  principle  which  leads  to  civil  ma- 
gistracy, and  atiix  the  seal  of  the  divine  Author  of  Christianity  to  the  iijaxiin, 
that  men  are  not  individually  sovereign,  but  either  _/o»i//y  so,  or  else  subject 
to  some  other  common  sovereignty  ;  and  that  maxim,  thus  divinely  ratified, 
decides  that  men  must  submit  to  the  lawful  public  authority  under  which 
they  live.  But  this  has  no  bearing  on  the  case  of  the  ministry,  which  was 
not  only  created  and  ordained  of  God,  but  concerning  the  abolition  or  change 
of  which  no  prophecy  or  hint  is  uttered,  wiiich  all  history  attests  to  have  been 
perpetuated  in  the  episcopal  form,  and  which,  if  it  ever  fail,  must  be  again 
appointed  by  God,  and  "  ordained"  anew,  not  by  men.  but  "  for  men  ;"  since 
its  business  is  "m  things  pertaining  to  Gi^d,"  since  the  ministry  of  recon- 
ciliation is  "given"  by  God,  and  by  him  "  committed  to"  men,  or  "  put  in" 
men,  and  since  it  is  an  embassy  from  Chhist.  (Heb.  v.  1.  2  Cor.  v.  18,  19, 
20. J  Such  an  office  must  either  be  ])erpeluated  or  be  lost:  it  cannot  bo 
renewed  or  changed,  like  the  civil  olKces  which  are  the  creation  of  man.  It 
is  clear  then  from  Scripture,  that  civil  government,  though  of  perpetual, 
general  obligation,  is  not  so  in  any  one  of  its  kinds  ;  while  ecclesiastical  po- 
lity is  permanently  binding  in  the  form  set  forth  in  the  New  Testament. 
3.  It  has  been  said,  that  tiie  appointment  of  a  king  for  Israel  by  the  Deity,  is 
an  intimation  of  the  divine  will  in  favour  of  royal  government,  and  tliat 
therefore  that  form  of  civil  magistracy  must  be  as  binding  as  episcopacy.  "We 
replv,  that  i/such  an  intimation  of  the  divine  will  existed,  it  would  unques- 
tionably be  binding  on  Christians.  But  this  is  not  the  fact.  On  the  con- 
trary, by  the  proi)het  Mosea,  (xiii.  2.)  God  declares  "  I  gave  tliee  a  king  in 
mine  anger."  And  the  hi.story  of  the  atiairs  which  led  to  the  appointment 
of  Saul  ?hows,  that  it  was  human  perverseness  and  ambition  which  insisted 
on  having  a  king,  while  the  Deity  opposed  it,  and  even  "protested"  against 
it.  (1  Sam.  viii.  5 — 20.  Sec  also  the  margin  of  verse  9.)  This  foct  neu- 
tralizes, not  only  the  inference  in  favour  of  royal  government  drawn  froir; 
that  case,  but  all  other  allegations  of  the  kiixl  pretending  scri|)tnral  authority 
This  fact  shows,  in(lisi)utably,  that  God  permits  men  to  choose  for  them- 
selves a  form  of  ciinl  government.  Not  till  the  Israelites  had  freely  and 
even  irreligiously  declared  for  a  monarchy,  did  the  Almighty  select  the  inth- 
vidual  who  should  be  their  king.  In  forming,  however,  the  government  of 
the  Christian  Church,  man  was  not  even  consulted;  the  ministry  was  a])- 
pointfd  by  Christ;  its  appointment  was  placed  on  record  by  the  Holv 
Spirit  ;  from  that  record  we  gather  that  its  model  was  episcopacy  :  and  this 
we  think  a  sufficient  intimation  of  the  will  of  Goo  that  all  Christians  should 
conform  to  that  model.  The  case  of  monarchical  government  is  in  no  respect 
analogous  with  this.  — 1.  Parity  contradicts  its  own  principles  in  raising 
objections  to  our  argument  from  the  precepts  contained  in  Scripture  to  o!iey 
kings.  Sound  Presbyterians,  as  well  as  sound  Episcopalians,  believe  that 
the  ecclesiastical  system  delineated  in  Scripture  is  of  permanent  obligation. 
We  both  insist  on  ordination  by  succession  from  the  Apostles.  If  this 
succession  is  broken,  ordination  becomes  neither  eyjiscopal  ncr  presbyterian, 
but,  as  wo  both  affirm,  of  mere  lay  or  human  authority.  Now,  if  Parity  thus 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  45 

claims  prrprf uity  hccausc  it  is  said  to  be  found  in  Scripturf»,  yet  rejects  the 
perpcluity  ot'lvini:jly  governincnt,  also  found  there,  why  should  Ejjiscopahans 
be  censured  fur  doing  the  very  same  in  behah"of //icir  system!  The  same 
arsrumeiits  which  l-'arity  uses  in  regard  to  this  point,  Episcopalians  may  also 
Use.  If  i7a- friends  are  satisfied  that  "  the  king,  as  sn[)n'ine,"  was  a  tran- 
sient appointment,  so  are  ire.  II" they  aie  satisfied,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
the  scriptural  model  of  ecclesiastical  l>olity  is  yiot  a  transient  a|)[)ointHient,  so 
aiiaiu  are  we.  The  only  question  remaining  is — what  is  the  model  ol'  the 
ministry  contained  in  Scripture!  is  it  presbytery,  or  is  it  episcojiacy  1 
And  lliis  is  the  question  which  has  becu  discussed,  and  \\c  hope  to  purpose, 
iji  the  Ibrcgoing  essay. 

NOTE   H— PAGE  31, 

That  the  duties  of  an  Evangelist,  as  such,  were  of  an  itinerant  missionary 
kind,  is,  so  far  as  the  scriptural  evidence  is  concerned,  merely  taken  for 
granted.  This  point  is  indeed  of  small  moment  in  our  controversy.  But, 
as  all  errors  have  a  tendency  to  dispose  the  mind  to  further  perversions,  we 
think  the  following  corroborations  oi  the  |)osition,  that  'it  is  not  to  be  pre- 
sumed that  an  Evan<relist  was  necessarily  a  missionary,'  may  be  useful. 

An  old  connnentalor,  strongly  anti-episcopal,  speaks  decidedly  against  tlie 
missionary  functions  of  evangelists,  and  gives,  in  this  respect,  a  just  view  of 
their  duties,  as  deduced  from  Scripture  only.  "These  were  followers  [secla- 
torcn,  imitators]  of  the  Apostles,  and  they  sometimes  abode  [subsistebant]  in 
a  particular  church,  teaching  and  defending  the  Ajjoslles' doctrine.  Hence 
[the  Scripture]  often  takes  them  tiir  the  [ipso]  minister  of  the  word,  (the  pas- 
tor, we  |)resume,  of  some  such  particular  church,)  as  in  2  'I  im.  iv.  'do  the 
work  of  an  evangelist,' that  is,  diligently  and  watchfully  teach.  Such  also 
was  Philip  in  Acts  x\i."  See  AtrETius  on  Ephes.  iv.  11.  It  is  obvious  that 
this  writer  considered  "  evangelists"  as  rathei  settled  than  migratory  teach- 
ers, and  as  being  often  proper  pastors.  Another  reference  will  show  this 
more  fully.  "  Do  the  work  of  an  evangelist,  that  is,  faithfully  teaching.  1 
su|)pose  an  evangelist  to  mean  one  who  was  ]mnci})ally  employed  in  preach- 
ing the  gos])el,  yet  was  not  an  .\postle.  For  these  (Apostles)  with  the  highest 
authority  of  the  lloLV  Spirit,  /raxT//c£/ hither  and  thither  tor  thepurpo.se 
of  instituting  antl  reforming  [ms/r/jtran^/i  ct  rf/brjnant/i]  churches,  wherever 
a  ]i!acc  was  opened.  But  Evangelists,  without  [citra,  on  this  side,  shoit  of] 
the  ollice  of  apostleshif),  preach'-.d  to  them  (these  churches)  with  the  au- 
thority of  the  next;  [oliice  ;]  sometunes  they  presided  over  particular  churches 
as  Bishops  (presbyter-bishops.)  Such  was  Timothy,  both  an  Evangelist  and 
a  Liishop."  See  Are  riu.s  on  2  Tim.  iv.  5.  Our  author  as.signs  travelling 
or  missionary  duty  to  the  Apostles;  he  regards  i/icw  as  the  founders  and 
settlers  of  churches;  but  the  functions  of  Evangelists  he  represents  as  chiefly 
of  a  preaching  and  pastoral  kind. — We  have  made  these  quotations  in  aid  of 
our  a.ssertioi},  that  the  missionary  character  of  Evangelists  ought  not  to  be 
taken  for  granted.  The  author  is  wrong  however  in  saying  that  no  F^van- 
gelists  were  Apostles,  since  Timothy  was  both.  He  is  also  wrong  in  calling 
Timothy  a  presbytcr-bisiiop.     Our  essay  has  settled  these  [xntits. 

Charles  I.,  in  his  controversy,  in  the  Isle  of  Wight,  with  the  Presbyterian 
Divines,  very  soundly  remarks — (p.  (!.)  "settinir  aside  men's  con  jcclures,  vou 
cannot  make  it  ap[)ear  by  any  text  oi'  Srripl  arc,  that  tlKMilIice  of  an  Evangelist 
IS  such  as  you  have  described  it.  'I'he  work  of  an  I'',\angelist  which  St.  Paul 
e.xhortrth  Timothy  to  do,  seems  by  the  context  (2  Tim.  iv.  .').)  to  he  nothing 
out  diligence  in  preaching  the  word,  notwithstanding  all  iinpediinents  anil 
oi)()nsitious."  To  this  the  Presbyterian  Divines  only  alk'ge  the  various 
recorded  travels  of  Timothy  and  Titus.     But  these  travels  were  comuion  to 


46  EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE. 

them  anil  the  Apostles ;  and  as  mucli  prove  them  to  have  held  this  lattei 
ollice,  as  that  of  Evangelists. 

MiLNEK  (Vol.  I.  p.  5ti,  5D)  thinks  that  Philip,  the  Evangelist,  resided  in 
Cesarea  twenty  or  tliirty  years,  fro'ii  the  time  he  reached  there  ailer  baj)- 
tizinjr  the  F.ihiopian,  (Acts  viii.  40.,)  till  Paul  lodged  at  his  iiouse,  as  men- 
(i4)tied  in  Acts  xxi.  8. 

Ill  line:  There  is  no  scriptural  proof  that  Evanirelists,  as  such,  were  miffra- 
tory  or  itinerant;  ray,  that  sort  of  jiroof  favours  the  opposite  opinion,  tliat 
they  did  not  travel  merely  in  the  fullilmeiit  of  their  evangelizing  function. 
And  we  therefore  assert,  that,  so  far  as  ajjpcnrs  from  the  inspired  record, 
Timothy  might  have  "done  the  work  of  an  Evangelist,"  without  being  in 
any  sense  a  missionary  Bishop,  but  exclusively  a  diocesan.  AVe  say  this, 
only  because  it  is  due  to  truth  and  accuracy,  not  because  our  argument 
requires  it.  That  Timothy  was  a  proper  Bishop  we  have  proved  in  the 
essay;  and  it  is  of  no  conseijuence  whether  he  exercised  that  ollice  as  a 
missionary,  or  a  diix^esan,  or  both.  It  is  expedient,  probably  in  the  highest 
degree,  that  every  Bishop,  whatever  extra  duties  he  may  perforin  as  a  mis- 
sionary, be  a  diocesan  or  coadjutor;  but  this  is  not  essential.  In  the  first  found 
ing  of  Christianity,  the  apostolical  or  episcopal  labours  of  ahnost  every  iiidi 
vidual  in  the  office  were  necessarily  Jltlused  widi'ly.  Vet  the  docile  student 
of  Scripture  will  not  ftiil  to  remark,  i.h.it  it  leaves  Timothy  in  Ephesus,  and 
the  seven  "angels"  connected  with  their  respective  Churches;  to  w hick 
the  case  of  James  is  to  be  a<lded,  in  the  Church  of  Jerusalem.  (Ac*s  xv. 
t3,  19  :  xxi.  18.)  Thus  much  may  be  securely  claimed,  in  addition  to  ihf. 
revealed  argument  for  episcopacy  in  itself,  in  favour  of  diocenan  arrangn- 
ments. 

Coverdale  translates  U  Tmiothy  iv.  5,  "do  the  work  of  a  preacher  of  tho 
Gcspcl." 


No.  47. 


TEX  EKD. 


TIMOTHY    AN    APOSTLE. 


In  the  essay  entitled,  "  Episcopacy  Tester'  by  Scripture,"  it 
was  noticed  that  Timothy  is  called  an  "apostle"  in  that  sacred 
volume.  Almost  no  use,  however,  was  made  of  that  fact  in  the 
main  argument  of  the  essay,  as  it  was  believed  to  be  new  matter, 
and  indeed  was  not  discovered  by  the  author  till  his  piece  was 
written.  It  was  chiefly  adduced  to  show  the  fallacy  of  ascrib- 
ing Tiinotliy's  superior  power  to  his  being  an  evangelist,  when 
he  had  supreme  power  as  an  apostle.  Tlie  grounds  on  which  it 
was  asserted  that  Timothy  has  this  title  in  Scripture,  were  briefly 
given  in  a  note  : — 

'  See  1  Thess.  ii.  0,  compared  with  1  Thess.  i.  1.  Paul,  Silva- 
nus  (or  Silas,)  and  Timothy,  are  all  included  as  "  apostles."  In 
verse  18,  Paul  speaks  of  himself  individually,  not  probably  before. 
It  is  not  unusual,  indeed,  for  St.  Paul  to  use  the  plural  number  of 
himself  only;  but  the  words  "rtposi/es"  and  "our  own  souls,'^ 
(verse  8,)  being  inapplicable  to  the  singular  use  of  the  plural 
number,  show  that  the  three  whose  names  are  at  the  liead  of 
this  epistle  are  here  spoken  of  jointly.  And  thus  Silas  and  Timo- 
thy are,  with  Paul,  recognised  in  this  passage  of  Scripture  as 
"  apostles." ' 

The  passage  thus  referring  to  Paul,  Silvanus,  and  Timothy, 
is — "  we  might  have  been  burdensome,  as  the  apostles  of  Christ  ; 

but toe  were  willing  to  have  imparted  unto  you 

our  own  souls.^^  The  words  "apostles"  and  "souls"  are  obvi- 
ously plural  in  the  plural  sense,  and  show  that  Paul  was  not 
speaking  of  himself  alone,  but  of  all  the  three  who  joined  in  the 
epistle. 

A  writer  in  the  Connecticut  Observer  (February  14th)  denies 
the  application  of  this  language  to  the  three  individuals  men- 
tioned, and  asserts  that  these  plural  words  have  the  singular 
sense,  and  are  meant  of  Paul  only.    His  remarks  are  as  follows : — 

"  'i'he  proof  adduced  is  a  comparison  of  1  Thess.  ii.  6,  with 
the  same,  i.  1.  The  writer  says,  '  Paul,  Silvanus,  and  Timothy, 
are  all  included  as  apostles.'  JPaul  unites  Silvanus,  or  Silas,  and 
'I'imothy,  in  the  salutation  with  himself,  1  Thess.  i.  1  ;  and  in 
the  next  chapter,  verse  6,  he  says, '  IVe  miglit  have  been  biirdon- 
some  to  yon  as  apostles  of  Christ.'  The  question  is,  did  Paul 
mean  to  include  the  others  with  himself  in  this  passage?  The 
wril(;r  in  the  Protestant  Episcopalian  alfirms  that  he  did.  We 
say  he  did  not — at  least,  it  cannot  be  pr()ved  that  he  did.  The  use 
of  the  plural  'ice'  does  not  i)rove  it.  For  Paul  often  ""  '  we' 
.vhen  Ik;  intends  only  himself ;  and  in  letters  to'^  ■  «;rs 

are  joined  with  him  in  tiie  salutation.     To  in  .ve 


48  TIMOTHY   AN   APOSTLE. 

have  an  instance  in  this  very  chapter,  verse  18.  Compare,  also, 
I  Thcss.  iii.  1,  with  the  same,  verse  6.  Neither  do  the  pinral 
expressions,  '■apostles''  and  '  our  own  souls''  prove  it.  We  have 
instances  of  similar  modes  of  expression  in  oilier  parts  of  his 
writings,  when  he  himself  only  is  intended.  For  example  of 
the  first,  '■apostles,''  compare  2  Cor.  i.  24,  with  the  same,  i.  23, 
where  '  helpers''  is  nsed  to  denote  the  singular,  as  '  ire'  is  to 
denote  the  same.  For  parallel  example  to  '' 07ir  own  soitls,^  as 
denoting  the  singular,  vide  2  Cor.  vii.  3,  compared  with  verse  7, 
where  '  in  our  hearts''  refers  to  Paul  solely." 

On  this  extract  several  observations  may  be  made  in  reply. 

The  note  from  "  Episcopacy,"  &c.,  allows  that  St.  Paul  often 
uses  the  plural  for  the  singular  in  speaking  of  himself.  So  far 
we  all  agree. 

The  reference  to  2  Cor.  i.  23,  24,  will  not  help  the  cause  of 
parity  ;  it  only  shows  a  transition  from  the  singular  to  the  plural 
in  the  plural  sense,  which  is  very  usual  where  the  writer  alludes 
to  both  himself  and  others  bearing  any  similar  relation  to  the 

persons  addressed  ;  "  to  spare  you  /came  not  as  yet 

not  that  we  have  dominion  over  your  faith,  but  are  helpers  of 
your  joy."  1.  Surely  common  sense  will  suggest  that  if  more 
"helpers"  than  Paul  can  be  found,  that  expression  would  be 
sounder  than  if  applied  to  him  alone.  Hence  it  would  be  com- 
petent to  say,  wiihf)ut  express  proof,  that  by  "  we"  he  here 
means  apostles  or  ministers  in  general.  2.  We  find,  however, 
only  five  verses  before,  the  persons  specially  alluded  to  as 
"we;"  they  are  "Paul,  Silvanus,  and  Timotheus,"  (verse  19.) 
These,  then,  are  the  "helpers"  of  the  passage;  and  thus  that 
word  is  proved  by  the  context  to  have,  not  a  singular,  but  a 
plural  meaning.  3.  McKnight  gives  a  general  plural  sense  ;  not 
that  "  we  apostles"  lord  it  over  you,  but  are  jniiit  workers  of 
your  joy.  4.  Doddridge  gives  another  general  plural  sense, 
"  but  we,  even  I,  and  all  the  faithful  ministers  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  are  joint  helpers  of  your  joy."  Instead,  therefore,  ol 
weakening  the  argiunent  that  Timothy  was  an  apostle,  the 
Observer  has  rather  strengthened  it,  by  pointing  to  an  additional 
case  of  Paul's  using  the  plural  number  without  giving  it  the 
meaning  of  the  singular. 

The  appeal  to  2  Cor.  vii.  3,  is  not  more  fortunate;  the  word 
"  hearts"  has  there  unquestionably  its  natural  plural  signification, 
including  other  "hearts"  beside  that  of  Paul,  "for  I  have  said 
before,  that  ye  are  in  our  hearts."  1.  Comm.on  sense.  9S  before 
urged,  requires  us  to  give  plural  meanings  to  such  plural  words, 
if  it  can  be  done  consistently,  which  is  the  case  here,  making 
"our  hearts"  to  allude  to  ministers  generally.  2.  St.  Paul,  in 
this  passage,  refers  to  a  previous  expression  used  by  him,  "  I 
have  said  before."  This  reference  carries  us*  to  verses  11,  12, 
of  the   sixth  chapter,  "  O  ye  Corinthians,  our  mouth  is  open 

*  See  margin,  McKnight,  Poole's  Synop.,  Poole's  Annot. 


TIMOTHY    AN    APOSTLE.  40 

unto  you,  our /jearf  is  enlarged."  Well,  the  Observer  maysav,  the 
"  hearts"  plural  of  the  one  passage,  must  mean  tlie  "  lieari''  sin- 
gular of  the  other,  and  both  refer  to  Paul's  afleclion  only.  No, 
we  reply,  "our  heart" is  a  general  or  collective  plirase,  (see  Roui. 
XV.  6,)  equivalent  to  "our  hearts;"  and  tluis  others  than  Paul 
are  included.  What,  then,  shall  decide  between  tliese  opposite 
assertions'^  the  context.  From  the  words  "our  heart,"  (vi.  11,) 
back,  to  tlie  beginning  of  the  chapter  continuously  (exct^pt  one 
verse  in  a  parenthesis,)  Paul  is  speaking  of  the  "  ministry."  To 
tiiat  body  he  alludes  every  time  the  first  person  plural  is  used 
throughout  the  passage.  Most  certainly,  then,  "om-  mouth  and 
our  heart"  relate  not  to  St.  Paul  alone,  but  to  "  tlie  ministry" 
spoken  of,  with  a  special  reference  to  those  of  that  sacred  order 
connected  with  the  Corinthians,  or  perhaps  to  himself  and  Tim- 
othy, who  address  this  epistle  to  them.  Now,  what  this  passage 
means,  the  other  quoted  by  the  Observer  means,  since  Paul  refers 
from  the  latter  to  the  former.  Of  course  the  words  "our  hearts" 
have  a  plural  signification,  applying  not  to  Paul  alone,  but  in  con- 
junction with  others.  And  thus  falls  the  Observer's  remaining 
olyjection  to  the  scriptural  proof  of  the  apostleship  of  Timothy. 

In  the  Connecticut  Observer  of  September  17th,  there  is  the 
following  passage  respecting  the  apostleship  of  Tiinothy  ;  it  is 
comprised  in  a  reply  to  a  writer  in  the  Episcopal  Watchman, 
under  the  signature  of  Ignatius. 

"Ignatius  insists  upon  it  that  Timothy  was  an  apostle  in  the 
same  sense  in  which  "Paul  was  an  apostle.  This  argument  is  so 
wrought  into  the  texture  of  some  modern  treatises  on  Episco- 
pacy, that  it  deserves  a  passing  remark.  The  claim  has  been 
but  lately  made  by  Episcopalians,  and  rests  solely  on  1  Thess. 
i.  I,  compared  with  chapter  ii.  6.  In  our  remarks  on  the  reviewer 
of  the  '  Tribute  to  the  Memonj  of  the  Pilo-rtms,^  a  few  montlis 
ago,  we  introduced  the  opinion  of  a  biblical  critic  second  to 
none  in  this  country,  that  the  use  of  the  plural  '  apostles'  in 
1  Thess.  ii.  6,  and  of  '  our  oxon  souls,''  verse  8,  does  not  prove 
that  Tiinotiiy  was  an  apostle.  Moreover,  according  to  the  author 
of  'Episcopacy  tested  by  Scripture,'  who  first,  so  far  as  we 
know,  urged  these  passages  in  proof  of  the  apostleship  of  Timo- 
thy, this  epistle  was  written  ten  years,  at  least,  before  Paul 
admonished  Timothy,  'Let  no  man  despise  thy  youth.''  If  he 
had  been  at  least  ten  years  an  apostle,  he  was  admitted  to  that 
office  very  young,  probably  at  about  the  age  of  twenty.  And 
how  shall  we  account  for  it  that  when  Paul  joins  Timothy  with 
himself  in  salutation  to  churches,  he  calls  himself  an  '  apostle,^ 
and  Tiinothy  only  a  ^  brother  V — vide  2  Cor.  i.  1;  Col.  i.  1; 
Philemon  verse  1.  He  speaks  of  Timothy  just  as  he  does  of 
Sosthenes,  who,  we  believe,  was  never  supposed  to  l)e  an  apos- 
tle; vide  1  Cor.  i.  1.  At  this  very  time,  too,  wtien  it  is  now 
claimed  that  Paul  calls  Timothy  an  apostle,  according  to  Arch- 
bishop Potter,  Timothy  was  attending  on  Paul  as  a  deacon." 
5 


so  TIMOTHY  AN  APOSTLE, 

On  this  passage  the  following  remarks  suggest  themselves  — 

The  fact  that  Timothy  was  an  apostle,  may,  perhaps,  he  said 
to  be  "  wroiiglit  into  the  texture  of  llie  treatise'''  entitled  "  Epis- 
copacy Tested  by  Scripture,"  but  it  is  not  "wrought  into  ihe 
texture"  of  the  main  argument  therein  contained.  All  that 
relates  to  tliat  fact  might  be  struck  from  the  "treatise"  without 
essential  injury.  Still  it  is  a  fact,  and  is  therefore  adduced  with 
perfect  propriety  in  its  bearings  on  the  controversy  between  our 
cause  and  that  of  parity. 

This  is  the  second  time  the  Connecticut  Observer  has  "  wrouglit 
into  the  texture"  of  its  columns  the  opinion  of  "  a  bil)lical  critic, 
second  to  none  in  the  country,"  that  Timothy  was  not  an  apos- 
tle. Is  this  reasoning?  Who  can  answer  a  name?  Let  the 
critic's  arguments  be  given,  and  it  may  be  seen  whether  they 
are  sound.  If  the  remarks  in  the  Observer  of  February  14, 
■were  the  arguments  of  this  eminent  critic,  they  were  answered 
in  the  Protestant  Episcopalian  for  March,  wliicli  answer  has 
never,  so  far  as  known,  been  replied  to.  And  if  wliat  is  now 
added,  in  the  above  extract,  be  also  his,  may  it  not  be  feared 
that  his  fund  of  reasoning  on  this  subject  is  running  low?  At 
all  events,  these  additional  observations,  whether  his  or  not,  are 
peculiarly  weak,  as  will  now  be  shown. 

First  among  these  new  objections  to  the  apostleship  of  Timo 
th^'',  at  the  time  1  Thessaloniaus  was  written,  is  the  remark, 
that  he  must  have  been  made  an  apostle  very  young.  The  answer 
is  easy,  being  nothing  more  than  the  objection  itself — he  was  an 
apostle  at  a  very  early  age.  Does  this  fact  prove  or  disprove 
any  thing?  Certainly  not.  Timothy,  we  know,  was  very  early 
pious  and  versed  in  the  Scriptures;  wliether  this  was  one  of 
St.  Paul's  reasons  for  placing  him  so  soon  in  the  apostleship, 
cannot  now  be  determined,  and  is  of  no  consequence  ;  it  is 
enough  that  Scripture  calls  him  an  apostle  in  the  year  54,  the 
date  of  the  epistles  to  the  Thessaloniaus,  when  he  may  have 
been  no  more  than  twenty  years  old,  but  was  probably  twenty- 
two  or  three. 

Next  objection :  Why  does  Paul,  in  some  places,  call  himself 
an  apostle,  and  Timothy  only  a  brother?  asks  the  Observer. 
Really  it  is  too  late  to  inquire,  but  the  fact  has  not  the  least 
bearing  on  the  point  in  question.  The  apostles  were  brethren 
to  each  other,  the  elders  were  brethen  of  the  apostles,  so  were 
the  deacons,  so  were  the  laity.  The  circumstance,  therefore,  of 
Paul's  calling  Timothy  a  brother,  while  he  calls  himself  an 
apostle,  proves  no  more  that  Timothy  was  not  an  apostle,  than 
it  does  that  he  was  not  a  clergyman  at  all,  but  only  a  layman. 

Next:  Paul's  calling  Sosthenes  a  brother,  proves  just  as  much 
as  his  giving  Timothy  that  appellation. 

Lastly  :  As  to  Archbishop  Potter's  opinion,  that  Timothy  was 
but  adeacon  at  the  time  St.  Paul  terms  him  an  apostle,  in 
1  Thess.  ii.  6,  it  is  obvionsly  a  mistake,  since  that  passage 
decides  against  him.     The  cause  of  the  mistake  of  this  able 


TIMOTHY  AN  APOSTLE.  ,  51 

defender  of  Episcopacy  seems  to  have  been  twofold.  He  over- 
looked the  passage  referred  to,  whicli  speaks  of  Timothy  as  an 
aposlhi ;  and  he  was  misled  by  the  word  liaKuvowruv  m  Acts 
xix.  22,  where  it  is  said  that  Tinwtliy  and  Erastiis  "  ministered' 
nnto  Paid  ;  wliicli  he  supposes  to  mean  ''  were  Paul's  deacons." 
This  is  but  tlie  old  error,  so  often  exposed,  of  arguing  from 
names  instead  of  facts.  On  the  next  page  (105.)  the  Arclibishop 
repeals  it ;  stating  tliat  elders  were  proper  bishops,  because  they 
are  said  mtaKOTrtiv.  He  might  as  well  have  allowed  that  Paul 
liimseif  was  but  a  deacon,  because  it  is  written,  "Who  then  is 
Paul,  and  who  is  Apollos,  but  ministers  StaKovoi,  by  whom  ye 
believed  ?  But  on  the  fallacy  of  reasoning  from  words  only 
of  this  kind,  without  facts,  or  against  facts,  nothing  more 
need  be  added ;  it  is  fully  exposed  in  "  Episcopacy  Tested  by 
Scripture." 

May  I  not,  in  conclusion,  venture  to  express  the  hope  that  the 
evidence  for  the  aposilesliip  of  Timothy  is  strengthened  by  these 
inelTeclual  attempts  to  overthrow  it  ? 

H.  U.  O. 


Prom  the  Quarterly  Christian  Spectator. 

REVIEW. 


EPrscoPACY  Testf.d  nv  Scripture.  By  the  Right  Reverend  Henry  U 
Onderdonk,  D.  D.,  Assistant  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episco-pa 
Church,  in  the  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania.  New- York  :  pub 
lished  by  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Tract  Society,  pp.  46. 

The  history  of  this  tract  is  this.  It  was  first  published  as  an 
essay,  in  the  "  Protestant  Episcopalian"  for  November  and 
December,  1830.  It  was  tlien  issued  in  a  pamphlet  form,  without 
the  name  of  the  author.  It  was  next  requested  for  publication 
by  the  "  Trustees  of  the  New-YorI<.  Protestant  Episcopal  Press;" 
and  after  being  amended  by  the  author,  with  an  addition  of 
several  notes,  it  was  printed  in  the  form  of  a  tract,  and  as  such 
has  had  an  extensive  circulation. 

The  tract  is  one  which  has  strong  claims  on  the  attention  of 
those  who  are  not  Episcopalians.  The  name  and  standing  of 
tlie  autiior  will  give  it  extensive  publicity.  The  fact  that  it 
comes  from  the  "  Press"  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  this  coun- 
try ;  tliat  it  is  issued  as  one  of  their  standing  publications,  and 
that  it  will,  tlierefore,  be  circulated  with  all  the  Zeal  wiiich 
usually  characterizes  associations  organized  for  defending  the 
exclusive  views  of  any  religious  body  ;  and,  most  of  all,  the 
character  of  the  tract  itself,  and  the  ground  assumed  by  it,  give 
it  a  title  to  our  attention  which  can  be  claimed  by  hardly  any 
single  tract  of  the  kind  ever  published  in  our  country.  Our 
views  of  it  may  be  expressed  in  one  word.  It  is  the  best  written, 
the  most  manly,  elaborate,  judicious,  and  candid  discussion,  in  the 
form  of  a  tract,  which  we  have  seen  on  this  subject.  Our  Epis- 
copalian friends  regard  it  as  unanswerable.  They  have  provided 
amply  for  its  circulation,  and  rely  on  its  making  converts 
wherever  it  is  perused  ;  and,  in  a  tone  which  cannot  be  mis- 
understood, they  are  exulting  in  the  fact,  that  to  this  day  it  has 
been  left  entirely  unnoticed  by  the  opponents  of  prelacy.*  And 
loe  wonder,  too,  that  it  has  not  been  noticed.  There  are  men 
among  us  who  seem  to  consider  the  external  defence  of  the 
Church  as  intrusted  to  their  peculiar  care;  who  delight  to  be 
seen  with  the  accoutrements  of  the  ecclesiastical  military  order, 
patrolling  the  walls  of  Zion ;  who  parade  with  much  self- 
complacency,  as  sentinels,  in  front  of  the  temple  of  God; 
who  are  quick  to  detect  the  movements  of  external  enemies; 


*  Has  ttie  tract  '  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture'  been  answered?     This,  we 
believe,  is  neither  the  first  time  of  asking,  nor  the  second,  nor  tlie  ttiird. 

Protestant  Episcovaliar^. 
(  62  1 


REVIEW — EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  53 

and  who  are  admirably  adapted  to  this  species  of  warfare. 
They  seem  to  liave  Utile  heart  for  the  interior  operations  of  the 
Cliurch,  and  seldom  notice  them,  except  to  suggest  doubts  of 
.the  expediency  of  some  new  measure  proposed,  or  to  promote 
discord  and  strife  by  laying  down  rules  for  the  conduct  of  those 
wlio  are  laboring  in  the  direct  work  of  saving  souls.  Much  do 
we  marvel  that  these  men  have  suffered  this  tract  to  lie  so  long 
unnoticed. 

We  have  never  regarded  the  Episcopal  controversy  with  any 
very  special  interest.  Our  feelings  lead  us  to  dwell  on  subjects 
more  directly  connected  with  the  salvation  of  the  soul.  We  have 
no  tasle  for  the  species  of  warfare  which  is  often  waged  in 
guarding  the  outposts  of  religion.  Christianity,  we  have  sup- 
posed, is  designed  to  act  directly  on  the  hearts  of  men,  and  we 
regard  it  as  a  matter  of  very  little  moment  in  what  particular 
church  the  spirit  is  prepared  for  its  eternal  rest,  provided  tiie 
great  object  be  accomplished  of  bringing  it  fairly  under  the 
influence  of  the  Gospel. 

But  we  propose,  for  the  reasons  already  suggested,  to  examine 
the  arguments  of  this  tract.  We  do  it  with  the  highest  respect 
for  the  autiior ;  with  a  full  conviction  that  he  has  done  ample 
justice  to  his  cause;  that  he  has  urged  on  his  side  of  t!ie  ques- 
tion all  tliat  can  be  advanced ;  and  we  enter  on  the  task  with 
sincere  pleasure  at  meeting  an  argument  conducted  with  entire 
candor,  without  misrepresentation,  and  with  a  manifest  love  of 
truth.  Our  wish  is  to  reciprocate  this  candor  ;  and  our  highest 
desire  is  to  imitate  the  chastened  spirit,  the  sober  argumentation, 
and  the  Christian  temper  evinced  in  this  tract.  It  is  firm  in  its 
principles,  but  not  illiberal ;  decided  in  its  views,  but  not  censo- 
rious ;  settled  in  its  aims,  but  not  resorting  to  sophism  or  ridi- 
cule, to  carry  its  points.  There  is,  evidently,  in  the  author's 
nund,  too  clear  a  conviction  of  the  truth  of  what  he  advances  to 
justify  a  resort  to  the  mere  art  of  the  logician  ;  too  manifest  a 
love  of  the  cause  in  which  he  is  engaged  to  expose  himself  to 
the  retort  which  might  arise  from  lofty  declamation,  or  the 
expression  of  angry  passions  toward  his  opponents. 

One  object  which  we  have  in  view  in  noticing  this  tract  is,  to 
express  our  gratification  that  the  controversy  is  at  last  put 
where  it  should  have  been  at  first,  on  an  appeal  to  the  Bible 
alune.  Never  have  we  been  more  disgusted  tiian  at  the  mode 
in  which  the  Episcopal  controversy  has  usually  been  conducted. 
By  common  consent,  almost,  the  writers  on  both  sides  iiave 
turned  from  tlie  New  Testament,  where  the  controversy  miglit 
liane  been  brought  to  a  speedy  issue,  to  listen  to  the  decisions 
0/  tiie  fathers ;  and,  as  might  have  been  expected,  have 

" found  no  end,  in  wandering  mazes  lost." 

It  was  tlie  policy  of  the  friends  of  prelacy  to  do  so;  and  it  was 
tiie  folly  of  their  opponents  to  suffer  them  to  choose  the  field  of 
debate,  and  to  weary  themselves  in  an  effort  to  fix  the  meaning, 
5* 


54  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

to  secure  the  consistency,  and  obtain  tSw  suffrages  of  the  fathers. 
Full  well  was  it  known,  we  believe;  by  the  friends  of  Episco- 
pacy in  other  times,  that  the  New  Testament  could  furnish  a 
most  slender  support  for  their  claims.  In  the  times  of  the 
Papacy  it  had  always  been  defended  by  an  appeal  to  tlie  fathers. 
Tlie  system  had  risen  sustained,  not  even  professed! ij,  by  the 
authority  of  the  Bible,  but  by  the  traditions  of  ihe  elders.  The 
ranks  and  orders  of  the  Papal  priesthood  could  be  defended  only 
by  the  authority  of  a  ciuirch  whicli  claimed  infallibility,  and 
which  might  dispense,  therefore,  with  the  New  Testament. 
The  reformers  came  forth  from  the  bosom  of  ttie  Papacy  with 
much  of  tills  feeling.  They  approaclied  this  suliject  with  hiyh 
reverence  for  tlie  opinions  f)f  past  times;  witii  a  deference  for 
the  fathers,  nourished  by  all  tlie  forms  of  their  education,  l)y  all 
existing  iuslituiions,  and  by  the  reluctance  of  the  human  mind 
to  break  away  from  the  established  customs  of  ages.  On  tlie 
one  hand,  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  found  their  proofs  in  the 
common  law  of  the  Church,  the  institutions  which  had  existed 
"time  wiiereof  the  memory  of  man  runneth  not  to  the  con- 
trary ;"  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  opponents  of  prelacy  were 
equally  anxious  to  show  that  theij  had  not  departed  from  the 
eusioins  of  the  fathers,  and  that  the  defence  of  their  institutions 
might  be  found  in  times  far  remote,  and  in  records  which 
received  the  veneration,  and  commanded  the  confidence  of  the 
Christian  world.  Into  this  abyss  both  parties  plunged.  In  this 
immense  chaos  of  opinions  and  interpretations,  into  these  mov- 
ing, disorganized,  josiling  elements,  where,  as  in  the  first  chaos, 
light  struggled  with  darkness,  and  confusion  reigned,  they  threw 
themselves,  to  endeavor  severally  to  find  the  support  of  their 
opinions.  "Whatsoever  time,  or  the  heedless  hand  of  blind 
cliance,"  says  Milton,  "  hath  drawn  down  from  of  old  to  tiiis 
present,  in  her  huge  drag-net,  whether  fish  or  sea-weed,  shells 
or  shrubs,  unpicked,  unchosen,  those  are  the  fathers."  With 
those  who,  according  to  Mosheim,*  deemed  it  not  only  lawful, 
but  commendable  to  deceive  and  lie  for  the  sake  of  truth  and 
piety,  it  would  be  singular  if  any  point  could  be  settled  that 
involved  controversy.  With  men  who  held  to  every  strange  and 
ridiculous  opinion  ;  to  every  vagary  that  the  human  mind  can 
conceive;!  it  would  be  strange  if  both  sides  in  this  controversy 
did  not  find  enough  that  had  the  appearance  of  demonstration 
to  perplex  and  embarrass  an  opponent  ad  libitum.  In  examin- 
ing this  controversy  as  it  was  conducted  in  former  times,  we 
have  been  often  amused  and  edified  at  ihe  perfect  complacency 
with  which  a  passage  from  one  of  the  fathers  is  adduced  in 
defence  of  either  side  of  the  question,  and  the  perfect  ease  with 
which,  by  a  new  translation,  or  by  introducing  a  few  words  of 
the  context,  or  more  frequently  by  an  appeal  to  some  other  part 


*  Murdoch's  Mosheim,  vol.  i.  p.  159. 

t  See  Tillemont's  Ecclesi.istical  History,  passim. 


TESTED   BY   riUUII'TDRE.  65 

of  the  same  author,  not  studious  liimself  of  consistency,  and 
probably  havinc;  no  settled  principles,  the  passage  is  shown  to 
mean  jiist  the  contrary  ;  and  then  again  a  new  version,  O'f  yet 
another  qnotatidn,  siiall  give  it  a  new  aspect  and  restore  it  to 
its  Cornier  honors.*  'J'lms  the  fatiiers  became  a  mere  football 
between  the  contending  parties;  and  thus,  in  this  contro- 
versy, tlie  weary  searcher  for  truth  finds  no  solid  groimd. 
Eminently  here '"•  he  which  [s  first  in  his  canse  seemelh  just  ; 
but  his  neighbor  cometh  and  searchclh  him."  Prov.  xviii.  17. 
To  tills  wwirisome  and  nnsalisfactory  toil  he  is  doomed  who 
will  read  all  the  older  controversies  on  Episcopacy.     There  he, 

"  OVr  boor,  or  steep,  tliroiigh  strait,  roug}!,  dense  or  rare, 
Willi  head.  luinds,  \vin4s  or  feet,  pureiies  liis  way, 
And  swims,  or  sin  lis,  or  wades,  or  creeps,  or  flies." 

Were  we  to  add^|6  the  most  striking  instance  of  the  pla-stic 
nature  of  this  kind  of  proof,  we  shotild  refer  to  the  epistles  ol 
Ignatius.  To  onr  eyes,  they  seem  to  he  a  plain  straight  forward 
acconnl  of  the  existence  of  Presbytenanism  in  his  lime.  Tliey 
are  snbstantially  such  a  description  as  a  man  would  give, 
writing  in  the  inflated  and  exaggerated  manner  in  which  the 
orientals  wrote,  of  Presbyterianism  as  it  exists  in  the  United 
States.  Yet  it  is  well  known  that  with  the  ntmost  pertinacity 
niose  letters  have  been  adduced  as  proving  the  doctrine  of  Epis- 
copacy. And  so  confident  have  been  the  assertions  on  the  sub- 
ject, that  not  a  few  Non-episcopalians  have  given  them  up  as 
"nnmanat;eable,  and  have  stoutly  contended,  what  may  be  very 
true,  tliat  no  inconsitlerahle  part  of  them  are  forgeries. 

Any  man  can  see  what  a  hopeless  task  is  before  him  if  lie 
endeavors  to  settle  this  controversy  by  the  authority  of  the 
fathers.  The  waste  of  time,  and  talent-,  and  learning,  on  this 
subject,  is  fitted  deeply  to  humble  the  heart.  And  even  yet  the 
passion  has  not  ceased.  Even  now,  men  high  in  office  and  in 
rank,  leave  the  New  Testament  and  appeal  to  the  fathers. 
Epi.scopacy  is  discarded,  not  principally  because  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  a  stranger  to  it,  but  because  Jerome  was  not  a  prelatist ; 
it  is  rejected,  not  because  it  cannot  be  made  out  from  the  IJihle, 
but  because  it  is  a  matter  of  debate  whether  the  fathers  teach  it 
or  not. 

From  this  unprofitable  and  endless  litigation  we  are  glad  to 
turn  to  the  true  merits  of  the  case.  We  rejoice  sincerely  that 
one  man  can  be  found  who  is  willing  to  bring  to  this  sniiject 
the  great  principle  of  the  Protestant  reformation,  that  all 
religions  opinions  are  to  be  tested  by  the  Scriptures.  And  we 
especially  rejoice  to  see  this  principle  so  decisively  advanced  by 
a  man  of  the  talents  and  official  rank  of  Dr.  Onderdonk  ;  and 
tiiat  it  is  so  proininenlly  avowed,  by  sending  forth  from  the 
"  Protestant  Epi.scopal  Press"   a  tract  defending  this  principle, 


Soi;  tlio  l/Ctlers  of  Dr.  Miller  and  Dr.  Howdeii  on  Episcopacy,  prusini. 


56  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

It  indicates  a  healthy  state  of  things  in  llie  Episcopal  Church  in 
this  country.  It  will  save  endless  disputes  aliout  words,  and 
much  useless  toil  in  endeavoring  to  give  consistency  aud  sense 
to  the  fathers.  This  mode  of  reasoning,  too,  will  soon  decide 
the  controversy.  Long  have  we  wished  to  see  this  matter 
brought  to  so  obvious  and  so  just  an  issue ;  and  long  have  we 
expected  that,  when  this  should  be  the  case,  the  matter  would 
be  soon  decided.  Hereafter  let  it  be  held  np  as  a  great  prin- 
ciple, from  wiiich,  neither  in  spirit  nor  in  form,  we  are  ever  to 
depart,  that  if  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  Episcopacy  are  not  found 
in  tlie  Scriptures  they  are  to  be  honestly  abandoned,  or  held, 
as  Cranmer  held  them,  as  matters  of  mere  ex{)ediency.  Let  lliis 
trutli  go  forlii,nevertobe  recalled,  and  let  every  man  who  attempts 
to  defend  the  claims  of  bishops  appeal  to  the  Bible  alone.  On 
this  appeal,  with  confidence,  we  rest  the  issue  of  this  case. 

The  great  principle  on  which  the  argiWient  in  this  tract  is 
conducted  is  indicated  in  its  title;  it  is  further  stated  at  length  in 
tlie  tract  itself.  Thus,  in  the  opening  sentence,  "  The  claim  oi 
Episcopacy  to  be  of  divine  institution,  and  therefore  obligatory 
on  the  Church,  rests  fundamentally  on  the  one  question — Has  it 
the  authority  of  Scripture?  If  it  has  not,  it  is  not  necessarily 
binding.''  Again,  on  the  same  page,  "  No  argument  is  worth 
taking  into  the  account,  that  has  not  a  palpable  bearing  on  the 
clear  and  naked  topic — the  scriptural  evidence  of  Episcopacy." 
Having  stated  this  principle,  the  writer  proceeds  to  remark,  that 
"the  argument  is  obstructed  with  manj'  extraneous  and  irrele- 
vant difficulties,  which,  instead  of  aiding  the  mind  in  reaching 
the  truth  on  that  great  subject,  tend  only  to  divert  it  and 
occupy  it  with  questions  not  affecting  the  main  issue."  The 
first  object  of  the  "  essay"  is  then  stated  to  be,  "  to  point  out 
some  of  these  extraneous  questions  and  difficulties,  and  expose 
either  their  fallacy  or  their  irrelevancy."  "  The  next  object  will 
be  to  state  the  scriptural  argument." 

In  pursuing  this  plan,  the  writer  introduces  and  discusses,  as 
one  of  these  extraneous  difficulties,  the  objection  that  Episco- 
pacy is  inimical  to  a  free  government.  He  next  notices,  as 
"  anotlier  of  these  extraneous  considerations,  the  comparative 
standing  in  piety,  as  evinced  by  the  usual  tokens  of  moral  and 
spiritual  character,  of  the  members  respectively  of  the  Episcopal 
and  Non-episcopal  churches."  A  third  "suggestion"  noticed  is, 
"that  the  external  arrangements  of  religion  are  but  of  inferior 
importance,  and  that  therefore  all  scruple  concerning  the  sub- 
ject before  us  may  be  dispensed  with."  p.  5.  A  fourth,  "  appa- 
rently formidable,  yet  extraneous  difficulty  often  raised,  is,  that 
Episcopal  claims  unchurch  all  Non-episcopal  denominations." 
p.  6.  This  consequence,  the  author  of  tlie  tract  says  is  not  by 
him  allowed.  "  But  granting  it  to  the  fullest  extent,"  it  is  asked, 
"  what  bearing  has  it  on  the  truth  of  the  single  proposition  that 
Episcopacy  is  of  divine  ordinance  V  A  fiftli  among  these  extra- 
neous points,  is  "  the  practice  of  adducing   the   authority  of 


TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  57 

individuals,  who,  aUhoiitj]!  eminent  in  learning  and  piety,  seem 
at  least  to  have  contradirteii  themselves  or  tliese  public  standards 
on  the  subject  of  Episcopacy."  p.  7.  'J'he  last  objection  noticed, 
as  not  affecting  the  ultimate  decision  of  the  controversy,  is,  "  that 
though  the  examples  recorded  in  Scripture  siiould  be  allowed 
to  fa°vor  Episcopacy,  still  that  regimen  is  not  there  explicitly 
commanded."  p.  9. 

To  most  of  the  observations  under  these  several  heads  we 
give  our  hearty  assent.  And  it  will  be  perceived  that  the  con- 
troversy is  thus  reduced  to  very  narrow  limits;  and  tiiat,  if 
these  principles  are  correct,  numberless  tomes  which  liave  been 
written  on  both  sides  of  the  queslion^are  totally  useless.  We 
aue  glad  that  ail  this  extraneous  matter  is  struck  off,  and  should 
rejoice  if  every  consideration  of  this  kind  were  hereafter  to  be 
laid  out  of  view. 

In  discussing  the  second  topic  proposed,  "the  scriptural  evi- 
dence relating  to  this  controversy,"  (p.  11,)  tlie  first  object  of 
Dr.  Onderdoiik  is  to  state  tlie  precise  point  in  debate.  It  is 
then  observed  that  "  parity  declares  tiiat  there  is  but  one  order 
of  men  autiiorized  to  minister  in  sacred  things,  all  of  this  order 
being  of  equal  grade,  and  having  inlierently  equal  spiritual 
rishts.  Episcopacy  declares  tiiat  the  Cliristian  ministry  was 
esiablished  in  three  orders,  called  ever  since  the  apostolic  age, 
bishops,  presbyters  or  elders,  and  deacons,  of  whicli  the  higiiest 
only  has  a  riglit  to  ordain  and  confirm,  that  of  general  super- 
vision in  a  diocese,  &c."  p.  11.  Tlie  main  question  is  then 
staled,  correctly,  to  be,  that  "  concerning  the  superiority  of 
bishops;"  and  the  object  of  the  essay  is  to  prove  that,  according 
to  the  New  Testament,  such  an  order  existed,  and  was  clothed 
with  such  peculiar  powers,  p.  11.  Let  it  not  be  forgotten  that 
this  is  the  main  point  in  the  case,  and  that  if  this  is  not  made 
out,  so  as  to  be  binding  on  the  Church  every  where,  the  claims  of 
Episcopacy  fall  to  the  ground. 

In  endeavoring  to  establish  this  point,  the  author  maintains, 
"  that  the  apostles  ordained,"  and  denies  tliat  elders  (presbyters) 
ever  did.  p.  14.  In  supporting  this  position  the  plan  of  argu- 
ment is  to  show,  that  "  the  apostles  and  elders  had  not  equal 
power  and  rights."  p.  14.  An  attempt  is,  therefore,  made  to 
prove  that  the  difference  between  the  two  orders  is,  that  the 
former  had  the  power  of  ordination,  the  latter  not.  In  pursuing  the 
reasoning  (p.  IG)  the  writer  endeavors  to  show,  that  "there  is 
no  scriptural  evidence  that  mere  elders  (presbyters)  ordained." 
Under  tliis  branch  of  the  argument,  he  examines  the  texts  which 
have  usually  been  adduced  in  favor  of  Presbyterian  ordination. 
Having  shf)wn,  as  he  supp.nses,  that  these  passages  do  not  prove 
that  thl-y  did  tlius  ordain.  Dr.  O.  next  proceeds  to  the  last  branch 
of  the  subject,  viz.,  that  "  this  distinction  betw(H>n  elders  and  a 
grade  siipiMior  to  them,  in  regard  especially  to  the  power  of  ordain- 
ing, was  so  persevered  in,  as  to  indicate  that  it  was  i\  permanent 
arrangement,  and  not  designed  to  be  but  temporary."  p.  23. 


58  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

This  is  the  outline  of  the  argument.  It  manifestly  embraces 
the  essential  points  of  the  case.  And  if  these  positions  cannot 
be  maintained,  Episcopacy  has  no  binding  obligation  on  men, 
and  snch  a  claim  should  be  at  once  abandoned.  This  argument 
we  propose,  with  great  respect,  but  with  entire  freedom,  to 
examine.  And  we  expect  to  show  that  the  point  is  not  made 
out,  that  the  New  Testament  has  designated  a  superior  ranlc  of 
church  officers,  intrusted  with  the  sole  power  of  ordination,  and 
general  superintendence  of  the  Church. 

In  enteri;^^  on  this  discussion,  we  shall  first  endeavor  to  ascer- 
tain the  real  point  of  the  controversy,  and  to  show  that  the 
scripture  authorities  appealed  to,  do  not  establish  the  point  main- 
tained by  Episcopalians.  In  pursuance  of  this,  we  remarlt,  that 
the  burden  of  proof  lies  wholly  on  the  friends  of  Episcopacy. 
Tliey  set  up  a  claim — a  claim  which  they  affirm  to  be  binding 
on  all  the  churches  of  every  age.  It  is  a  claim  which  is  specific, 
and  which  must  be  made  out,  or  their  whole  pretensions  fall. 
In  what  predicament  it  may  leave  other  churches  is  not  the 
question.  It  would  not  prove  Episcopacy  to  be  of  divine  origin, 
could  its  friends  show  that  Presbyterianism  is  unfounded  in 
the  Scriptures  ;  or  that  Congregationalism  has  no  claims  to 
support;  or  that  Independency  is  unauthorized;  or  even  that 
lay-ordination  is  destitute  of  direct  support.  The  question  after 
all  might  be,  whether  it  was  the  design  of  the  Apostles  to  estab- 
lish any  particular  form  of  church  government,  any  more  than 
to  establish  a  fixed  mode  of  civil  administration?  This  question 
we  do  not  intend  to  examine  now,  neither  do  we  design  to 
express  any  opinion  on  it.  We  say  only,  that  it  is  a  question  on 
which  much  may  be  said,  and  which  should  not  be  considered 
as  settled  in  this  controversy.  The  specific  point  to  be  made 
out  is,  that  there  is  scriptural  authority  for  that  which  is  claimed 
for  the  bishops.  And  we  may  remark  further,  that  this  is  not  a 
claim  which  can  be  defended  by  any  doubtful  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture, or  by  any  very  circuitous  mode  of  argumentation.  As  it  is 
expected  to  affect  the  whoie  organization  of  the  Church  ;  to 
constitute,  in  fact,  the  peculiarity  of  its  organization  ;  and  to 
determine,  to  a  great  extent  at  least,  the  validity  of  all  its  ordi- 
nances, and  its  ministry  ;  we  have  a  right  to  demand  that  the 
proof  should  not  be  of  a  doubtful  character,  or  of  a  nature  which 
is  not  easily  apprehended  by  the  ordinary  readers  of  the  New 
Testament. 

We  repeat  now,  as  of  essential  importance  in  this  controversy, 
that  the  burden  of  proof  lies  on  the  friends  of  Episcopacy.  It  is 
theirs  to  make  out  this  specific  claim.  To  decide  whether  they 
can  do  so,  is  the  object  of  this  inquiry. 

The  first  question  then,  is,  What  is  the  claim  ;  or,  what  is  the 
essential  point  which  is  to  be  made  out  in  the  defence  of  Epis- 
copacy ?  This  claim  is  stated  in  the  following  worrls:  (p.  II:) 
"  Episcopacy  declares,  that  the  Christian  ministry  was  estab- 
lished in  three  orders^  called,  ever  since  the  apostolic  age,  bishops 


TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  59 

presbyters  or  elders,  [if  so,  why  do  they  now  call  the  second 
order  priests?]  and  deacons,  of  which  the  highest  only  lias  the 
right  to  ordain  and  confirm,  that  of  the  chief  administration  in  a 
diocese,  and  that  of  the  cliief  administration  of  spiritual  disci- 
pline, besides  enjoying  all  the  powers  of  the  other  trades."  The 
main  question,  as  thus  stated,  relates  to  the  authority  of  bishops, 
and  the  writer  adds,  '•  If  we  cannot  authenticate  the  claims  of 
the  Episcopal  office,  (the  office  of  bishops,)  we  will  surrender 
those  of  our  deacons,  and  let  all  power  be  confined  to  the  one 
office  of  presbyters."*  The  same  view  of  the  main  point  of  the 
controversy  is  given  by  Hooker,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  Polity, 
b.  vii.  §  2. 

It  will  be  seen  that  several  claims  are  here  set  up  in  behalf  of 
bishops.  One  is,  the  right  of  ordination  :  a  second,  that  of  con- 
firmation ;  a  third,  that  of  general  supervision  ;  a  fourth,  that  of 
the  general  administration  of  discipline.  These  are  separate 
points  to  be  made  out,  and  a  distinct  argument  might  be  entered 
into  to  show  that  neither  of  them  is  founded  on  the  authority  of 
tlie  Scriptures.  To  enter  on  this  discussion  would  require  more 
time  and  space  "than  we  can  now  spare.  Nor  is  it  necessary, 
for  we  presume  the  Episcopalian  would  be  willing  to  stake  the 
whole  cause  on  his  being  able  to  make  out  the  authority  of  oyxli- 
nation  to  lie  solely  in  the  bishop.  For,  obviously,  if  that  cannot 
be  made  out, all  the  other  pr&teusiorisare  good  for  nothing;  and, 
as  tlie  writer  of  this  tract  limits  his  inquiries  to  this  single  point, 
we  shall  confine  our  remarks  to  this  also. 

Tire  question  then'  is,  Has  a  bishop  the  sole  power  of  ordain- 
ing ?  Is  setting  apart  to  a  sacred  office, — to  the  office  of  preach- 
ing and  administering  the  sacraments,  confined  in  the  New  Test- 
anienl  exclusively  to  this  order  of  ministers?  The  Episcopalian 
claims  that  it  is.  We  deny  it,  and  ask  him  for  the  explicit  proof 
of  a  point  so  simple  as  this,  and  one  which  we  have  a  right  to 
expect  he  will  make  out,  with  very  great  clearness,  from  the 
sacred  Scriptures. 

The  first  proof  adduced  by  the  author  is,  that  the  apostles  had 
the  sole  power  of  ordaining.  This  is  a  highly  important  point 
iu  the  discussion,  or  rather,  the  very  hinge  of  the  controversy.  We 
cannot,  therefore,  but  express  our  surprise,  that  a  writer  who 
can  see  the  value  and  bearing  of  an  argument  so  clearly  as 
Dr.  Onderdonk,  should  not  have  thought  himself  called  upon  to 
devote  more  than  <tco  pages  to  its  direct  defence;  and  that,  with- 
out adducing  any  explicit  passages  of  the  New  Testament.  The 
argument  stated  in  these  two  pages,  or  these  parts  of  three  pages, 
(It,  15,  IG,)  rests  on  the  assumption  that  the  apostles  ordained. 
"That  the  apostles  ordained,  all  agree."  Now,  if  this  means 
any  thing  to  the  purpose,  it  means  tiiat  they  orilaini-ri  as  apos- 
tles ;  or  lliat  they  were  set  apart  to  the  apostolic  office  for  tiie 
purpose  of  ordaining.  But  this  we  shall  take  tlie  liberty  to  deny, 
and  to  prove  to  be  an  unfounded  claim.  Having  made  this 
«*ssumplion,  the  writer  adds,  that  a.  disliiictioji  is  observed  in  the 


60  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

New  Testament. between  "  the  apostles  and  elders,"  the  "  apos- 
tles, and  elders,  and  brethren."  He  next  attempts  to  show,  that 
this  (iislinclion  was  not  made  because  they  "  were  appointed  by 
Christ  personally,"  nor  because  "  tiiey  had  seen  our  Lord  after 
his  resurrection  ;"  nor  "because  of  this  power  of  working  mira- 
cles ;"  and  then  the  writer  adds,  "  It  follows,  therefore,  or  will 
not  at  least  be  questioned,'''' — a  qualification  whicii,  by  ihe  way, 
seems  to  look  as  if  the  writer  iiad  himself  no  great  confidence  in 
the  consecutiveness  of  the  demonstration,  "  that  the  apostles 
were  distinguished  from  the  elders,  because  they  were  superior 
to  them  in  ministerial  power  and  rights."  p.  15.  This  is  the 
argument,  and  this  is  the  whole  of  it.  On  the  making  out  of  this 
point  depends  the  stupendous  fabric  of  Episcopacy.  Here  is 
the  corner-stone  on  which  rests  the  claims  of  bishops;  this  the 
position  on  which  the  imposing  and  mighty  superstructure  has 
been  reared.  Our  readers  will  join  witii  us  in  our  amazement, 
that  this  point  has  not  been  made  out  with  a  clearer  deduction  of 
arguments,  than  such  as  were  fitted  to  lead  to  the  ambiguous 
conclusion,  "  it  follows,  therefore,  or — ." 

Now,  the  only  way  of  ascertainins  whether  this  claim  be  well 
founded,  is  to  appeal  at  once  to  Ihe  New  Testament.  The  ques- 
tion, then,  which  we  propose  to  settle  now,  is,  Whetlier  the 
Apostles  were  chosen  for  the  distinctive  and  peculiar  work  of 
ordaining  to  sacred  offices  ?  This  the  Episcopalian  affirms. 
This  we  take  the  liberty  of  calling  in  question. 

The  Evangelists  have  given  tliree  separate  and  full  accounts 
of  tlie  appointment  of  the  Apostles.  One  is  recorded  by  Matthew 
ch.  X. ;  another  by  Mark,  iii.  12,  &c. ;  the  third  by  Luke,  ch.  vi. 
Tl)ey  were  selected  from  the  other  disciples,  and  set  apart  to 
their  work  with  great  solemnity.  Luke  vi.  The  act  was  per- 
formed in  the  presence  of  a  great  multitude,  and  after  the 
Saviour  had  passed  the  night  in  pra\'er  to  God.  Luke  vi.  12. 
The  instructions  given  to  them  on  the  occasion  occupy,  in  one 
part  of  the  record,  (Malt.)  the  entire  chapter  of  forty-two  verses. 
The  directions  are  given  with  very  great  particularity,  embrac- 
ing a  great  variety  of  topics,  evidently  intended  to  guide  them 
in  all  their  ministry,  and  to  furnish  them  with  ample  instruc- 
tion as  to  the  nature  of  their  office.  They  refer  to  times  which 
should  follow  the  death  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  were  designed 
to  include  the  whole  of  their  peculiar  work.     Matt.  x.  17-23. 

Now,  on  the  supposition  of  the  Episcopalian,  that  the  peculi- 
arity of  their  work  was  to  ordain,  or  that  "  they  were  distin- 
guished from  the  elders  because  they  were  superior  to  them  in 
ministerial  powers  and  ri^lits,"  (p.  15,)  we  cannot  but  regard  it 
as  unaccountable  that  we  find  not  one  word  of  this  here.  There 
is  not  the  slightest  allusion  to  any  such  distinguishing  "  power 
and  rights."  There  is  nothing  which  can  be  tortured  into  any 
such  claim.  This  is  the  more  remarkable,  as  on  another  occa- 
sion be  sent  forth  seventy  disciples  at  one  time,  (Luke  x.  1-16," 
usually  regarded  by  Episcopalians  as  the   foundation   of  the 


TESTED   BY    SCRIPTURE.  61 

second  order  of  their  ministers :  (see  "  The  Scholar  Armed  :") 
and  tliere  is  not  tlie  slightest  iiiliinaiioa  given  that  they  were  to 
be  inferior  to  the  apostles  in  the  power  of  ordaining  or  super- 
inti'iiding  the  churches.  We  do  not  know  what  explanation  the 
Episcopalian  will  give  of  this  remaviiable  omission  in  the  instruc- 
tions of  the  priaiiiive  bishops. 

This  omission  is  not  the  less  remarkable  in  the  instructions 
which  the  Lord  Jesus  gave  to  these  same  Apostles,  after  his 
resurrection  from  tlie  dead.  At  that  time  we  should  assuredly 
have  expected  an  intimation  of  the  existence  of  some  such  peculiar 
pijwer.  But  not  the  slightest  hint  occurs  of  any  such  exclusive 
authority  and  superintendence.  Matthew,  (xxviii.  18-20,)  Mark, 
(xvi.  15-18,)  and  Luke  (xxiv.  47-49,)  have  each  recorded  tiiese 
parting  instructions.  They  have  told  us  that  he  directed  them 
to  remiin  in  Jerusalem  (Luke)  until  they  were  endued  with 
power  from  on  high,  and  then  to  go  forth  and  preach  the  Gospel 
tu  every  crtiaiure  ;  but  not  a  solitary  syllable  about  any  exclusive 
potoer  of  urd illation ;  about  tlieir  being  a  peculiar  order  of 
ministers:  about  their  transmittinsr  the  peculiarity  of  the  apos- 
tolic office  to  others.  We  should  have  been  glad  to  see  some 
explanation  of  this  fact.  We  wish  to  be  apprized  of  the  reason, 
if  any  exist,  why,  if  the  peculiarity  of  their  office  consisted  in 
"  superiorily  of  ministerial  powers  and  rights,"  neither  at  their 
election  and  ordination,  nor  in  the  departing  charge  of  the 
Saviour,  nor  in  any  intermediate  time,  we  ever  hear  of  it ;  that 
even  the  advocates  for  the  powers  of  the  bishop  never  pretend 
to  adduce  a  solitary  expression  that  can  be  construed  into  a 
reference  to  any  such  distinction. 

We  proceed  now  to  observe,  that  there  is  not  any  where  else 
in  the  New  Testament,  a  statement  that  this  was  the  peculiarity 
of  their  apostolic  office.  Of  this  any  man  may  be  satisfied  who 
will  examine  the  New  Testament.  Or  he  may  find  the  proof  in 
a  less  laborious  way,  by  simply  looking  at  the  fact,  that  neither 
Dr.  Onderdonk,  nor  any  of  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy,  pretend 
to  adduce  any  such  declaration.  The  Apostles  often  speak  of 
themselves;  the  historian  of  their  doings  (Luke)  often  mentions 
them  ;  but  the  place  remains  yet  to  be  designated,  after  this  con- 
troversy has  been  carried  on  by  keen-sighted  disputants  for 
several  hundred  years,  which  speaks  of  any  such  peculiarity  of 
their  office. 

This  point,  then,  we  shall  consider  as  settled,  and  shall  feel  at 
liberty  to  make  as  much  of  it  as  we  possibly  can  in  the  argu- 
ment. And  we  might  here  insist  on  the  strong  presumption 
tiiiis  furnished,  that  this  settles  tiie  case.  We  should  be  very 
apt  to  regard  it  as  decisive  in  any  other  case.  If  two  men  go 
from  a  government  to  a  foreign  coiu't,  and  one  of  them  claims 
to  be  a  plenipotentiary,  and  affirms  that  the  other  is  a  mere 
private  secretary,  or  a  consul,  we  expect  that  the  claimant  will 
sustain  liis  pretensions  by  an  appeal  to  his  commission  or 
instructions.  If  he  maintains  that  this  is  the  peculiarity  of  his 
0 


62  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

office,  though  he  may  "  enjoy  all  the  powers  of  the  other 
grades,"  (p.  11,)  we  expect  to  find  this  clearly  proved  in  the 
documents  whicli  he  brings.  If  he  is  mentioned  by  no  navie 
that  designates  his  office,  as  the  Episcopalian  admits  the  bishop 
is  not,  (pp.  12, 13,) — if  his  commission  contains  no  such  appoint- 
ment, and  if  we  should  learn  that  specific  instructions  were 
given  to  liiin  at  his  appointment,  and  again  repeated  in  a  solemn 
manner  wiien  he  left  his  native  sliores, — we  should  at  least  look 
with  strong  suspicions  on  these  remarkable  claims.  Would  not 
any  foreign  court  decide  at  once  that  such  pretensions,  under 
such  circumstances,  were  utterly  unfounded? 

We  proceed  now  to  inquire,  whether  it  is  possible  to  ascertain 
the  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic  office?  for  it  must  be  conceded 
that  there  was  something  to  distinguish  the  apostles  from  the 
other  ministers  of  the  New  Testament.  Here,  happily,  we  are 
in  no  way  left  in  the  dark.  The  Saviour,  and  the  Apostles,  and 
sacred  writers  themselves,  have  given  an  account  which  cannot 
be  easily  mistaken  ;  and  our  amazement  is,  that  the  writer  of 
this  tract  has  not  adverted  to  it.  The  first  account  wliich  we 
adduce  is  from  the  lips  of  the  Saviour  himself.  In  those  solemn 
moments  when  he  was  about  to  leave  the  world, — when  the  work 
of  atonement  was  finished, — and  when  he  gave  the  Apostles  tlieir 
final  commission,  he  indicated  the  nature  of  their  labors,  and 
the  peculiarity  of  their  office,  in  these  words:  (Luke  xxiv.  48:) 
"  And  ye  are  witnesses  of  these  things.  And,  behold,  I  send 
the  promise  of  my  Father  upon  you,"  &c.  The  object  of  tlieir 
special  appointment,  which  he  here  specifies,  was,  that  tliey 
should  be  witnesses  to  all  nations.  (Comp.  v.  47,  and  Matthew 
xxviii.  18,  19.)  The  "  things"  of  which  they  were  to  bear  wit- 
ness, he  specifies  in  the  preceding  verse.  They  were  his  suffer- 
ings in  accordance  with  the  predictions  of  the  prophets  :  "  thus 
it  is  written,  and  thus  it  behoved  Christ  to  suffer  ;"  and  his 
resurrection  from  the  dead:  "and  to  rise  from  tlie  dead  the 
third  day."  These  were  the  points  to  bear  "  witness,"  lo  which 
they  had  been  selected  ;  and  these  were  the  points  on  which  they, 
in  fact,  insisted  in  their  ministry.  See  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
passim. 

We  would  next  remark,  this  is  expressly  declared  to  be  the 
"  peculiarity"  of  the  apostolic  office.  It  was  done  so  at  the  elec- 
tion of  an  apostle  to  fill  up  the  vacated  place  of  Judas.  Here, 
if  the  peculiar  design  had  been  to  confer  "  superiority  in  minis- 
terial rights  and  powers,"  we  should  expect  to  be  favored  with 
some  account  of  it.  It  was  the  very  time  when  we  should 
expect  them  to  give  an  account  of  the  reason  why  they  filled  up 
the  vacancy  in  the  college  of  apostles,  and  when  they  actually  did 
make  such  a  statement.  Their  words  are  these:  (Acts  i.  21,22:) 
"  Wherefore,  of  these  men  which  have  companied  with  us,  all 
the  time  that  the  Lord  .Tekus  went  in  and  out  among  us,  begin- 
ning from  the  baptism  of  .John,  unto  that  same  day  when  he  was 
taken  up  from  us,  must  one  he  ordained  to  be  a  witness  WITH 


TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  63 

US  of  his  resurrection.''''  This  passage  we  consider  to  be  abso- 
lutely decisive  on  tlie  point  before  lis.  It  shows,  first,  for  what 
purpose  they  ordained  liim  ;  and,  second,  that  they  were  ordained 
for  the  same  purpose.  Why  do  we  hear  nothing  on  this  occa- 
sion of  their  "superiority  of  ministerial  rights  and  powers?" 
■why  notliing  of  tlieir  peculiar  prerogative  to  ordain  ?  why 
nothing  of  their  "  general  superintendence"  of  the  Church  '? 
Plainly,  because  they  had  conceived  of  nothing  of  this  kind,  as 
entering  into  their  original  commission  and  peculiar  design. 
For  this  purpose  of  bearing  testimony  to  the  world  of  tlie  fact 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  Messiah,  they  had  been  originally 
selected.  For  this  thej'  had  been  prepared,  by  a  long  intimate 
acquaintance  with  the  Saviour.  They  had  seen  him  ;  had  been 
with  him  in  various  scenes,  fitted  to  instruct  them  more  fully  in  his 
designs  and  character;  had  enjoyed  an  intimate  personal  friend- 
ship with  him,  (1  John  i.  1,)  and  were  thus  qualified  to  go  forth 
as  "  witnesses"  of  what  they  had  seen  and  heard  ;  to  confirm 
the  great  doctrine  that  the  Messiah  had  come,  had  died,  and  had 
risen,  according  to  the  predictions  of  the  prophets.  We  just  add 
here,  tliat  these  truths  were  of  sufficient  importance  to  demand 
the  appointment  of  twelve  honest  men  to  give  them  confirma- 
tion. It  has  been  shown,  over  and  over  again,  that  there  was 
consummate  wisdom  in  the  appoiiUmenl  of  witnesses  enough 
to  satisfy  any  I'easonable  mind,  and  yet  not  so  many  as  to  give 
it  the  appearance  of  tumult  or  popular  excitement.  The  truth 
of  the  whole  scheme  of  Christianity  rested  on  making  out  the 
fact,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  had  risen  from  the  dead  ;  and  tlie 
importance  of  that  religion  to  the  welfare  of  mankind,  demanded 
that  this  should  be  substantiated  to  the  conviction  of  the  world. 
Hence  the  anxiety  of  the  eleven  to  complete  the  number  of  the 
original  witnesses  selected  by  the  Saviour,  and  that  tlie  person 
chosen  sliould  have  the  same  acquaintance  with  the  facts  that 
ihey  had  themselves. 

It  is  worthy,  also,  of  remark,  that  in  the  account  which  the 
historian  gives  of  tlieir  labors,  this  is  the  main  idea  which  is 
presented.  Acts  ii.  32.  "  This  JJesus  hath  God  raised  up,  where- 
of ice  are  ^fitnesses ;"  v.  32,  "And  we  are  witnesses  of  these 
things;"  X.  39-41,  "And  we  are  witnesses  of  all  things  which 
lie  did,  both  in  the  land  of  the  Jews  and  in  Jerusalem,  whom 
'.hey  slew  and  hanged  on  a  tree.  Him  God  raised  up  the 
third  day,  and  showed  him  openly;  not  to  all  the  people,  but 
unto  WITNESSES  choscH  before  of  God,  even  7into  us,"  &c.  In 
tliis  place  we  meet  with  another  explicit  declaration,  that  this 
was  llie  object  of  their  original  appointment.  They  were 
"chosen"  for  tliis,  and  set  apart  in  the  holy  presence  of  God 
to  this  work.  Why  do  we  not  hear  any  thing  of  "their  supe- 
riority in  ministerial  rights  and  powers'?"  Why  not  an  inti- 
mation of  the  power  of  confirming,  and  of  general  superin- 
tendence ?  We  repeat  that  it  is  not  possiljle  to  answer  these 
questions,  except  on  the  supposition  that  they  did  not  regard 


64  REVIEW — EPISCOPACV 

any  such  powers  as  at  all  entering  into  the  peculiarity  of  their 
commission. 

Having  disposed  of  all  that  is  said  in  the  New  Testament,  so 
far  as  we  know,  of  the  original  design  of  the  appointment  to  tlie 
apostolic  office,  we  proceed  to  another  and  somewhat  independ- 
ent source  of  evidence.  Tiie  original  number  of  tlie  apostles 
was  twelve.  The  design  of  their  selection  we  have  seen.  For 
important  purposes,  however,  it  pleased  God  to  add  to  tlieir 
number  one,  who  had  not  been  a  personal  attendant  on  the 
ministry  of  the  Saviour,  and  who  was  called  to  the  apostleship 
four  years  after  the  crucifixion  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  Now 
this  is  a  case,  evidently,  which  must  throw  very  important  light 
on  our  inquiries.  It  is  independent  of  the  others.  And,  as  he 
was  not  a  personal  observer  of  the  life  and  death  of  Je.sus  ;  as 
he  was  not  an  original  "  witness"  in  the  case,  we  may  expect  in 
the  record  n{  his  appointment,  a  full  account  of  his  "  superiority 
in  ministerial  riglits  and  powers."  If  such  superiority  entered 
into  the  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic  office,  this  was  the  very  case 
wliere  we  expect  to  find  it.  His  conversion  was  subsequent  to 
the  resurrection.  He  was  to  be  employed  extensively  in  found- 
ing and  organizing  churches.  He  was  to  have  intrusted  to  him 
almost  the  entire  Pagan  world.  Comp.  Rom.  xv.  IG.  His  very 
business  was  one  that  seemed  to  call  for  some  specific  account  of 
"superiority  in  ministerial  rights,"  if  any  such  rights  were 
involved  in  the  apostolic  office.  How  natural  to  expect  a  state- 
ment of  such  rights;  and  an  account  of  the  "general  superin- 
tendence" intrusted  to  him,  as  an  apostle!  Let  us  look,  there- 
f(M-e,  and  see  how  the  case  stands.  We  have  three  distinct 
accounts  of  his  conversion  and  appointment  to  the  apostleship, 
in  each  of  which  the  design  of  his  appointment  is  staled.  Acts 
xxii.  14,  15.  In  his  discourse  before  the  Jews  he  repeats  the 
charge  given  to  him  by  Ananias,  at  Damascus :  "The  God  of 
our  fathers  hath  chosen  thee,  &.c.  For  thou  shaltbe  his  witness 
unto  all  men  of  what  thou  hast  spen  and  heard.''''  Again  (Acts 
xxvi.  16,)  in  his  speech  before  Agrippa,  Paul  repeals  the  words 
addressed  to  him  by  the  Lord  Jesus  in  liis  original  commission  : 
"  I  have  appeared  unto  thee  for  this  purpose,  to  make  tliee  a 
minister  vvrifjirvv  and  a  witness  of  those  things,"  &e.  Again, 
(Acts  xxiii.  11,)  in  the  account  which  is  given  of  his  past  and 
future  work,  it  is  said  :  "  As  thou  hast  testified  of  me  in  Jerusa- 
lem, so  must  thou  bear  tvitness  also  at  Rome." 

This  is  the  account  which  is  given  of  the  call  of  Saul  of  Tar- 
sus to  the  apostolic  office.  But  where  is  there  a  single  syllable 
of  any  "superiority  in  ministerial  powers  and  rights,"  as  consti- 
tuting the  peculiarity  of  liis  office?  We  respectfully  ask  the 
writer  of  this  tract,  and  all  other  advocates  of  Episcopacy, 
to  point  to  us  a  "  light  or  shadow"  of  any  such  Episcopal 
investment.  We  think  their  argument  demands  it.  And  if  there 
is  no  such  account,  neither  in  tlie  original  choice  of  the  twelve, 
nor  in  the  appointment  of  Matthias,  nor  in  the  selection  of  tho 


TESTED    BY    SCRIPTDRE.  65 

Apostle  to  the  Gentiles  ;  we  take  the  liberty  to  insist  with  firm- 
ness on  a  satisfactory  exnlanalion  of  the  causes  wliich  operated 
to  produce  the  omission  of  the  very  gest  of  ilieir  oifice  accord- 
ing to  Episcopacy.  We  ins-ist  on  being  told  of  some  reasons, 
prudential  or  otherwise,  whicli  made  it  proper  to  pass  over  the 
very  vilaliiy  of  the  original  commission. 

lint  we  have  not  done  witli  the  apostle  Paul.  H3  is  too 
important  a  "witness"  for  us,  as  well  as  for  the  purpose  for 
which  lie  was  appointed,  to  be  dismissed  without  furtiier  atten- 
tion. It  has  been  remarked  already,  that  lie  was  not  a  personal 
follower  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  and  was  not  present  at  his  deatli 
and  ascension.  It  may  be  asked,  then,  how  could  he  be  a  wit- 
ness, in  the  sense  and,  for  the  purposes  already  described  ? 
Let  us  see  how  this  was  provided  for.  We  transcribe  the 
account  from  his  own  statement  of  the  address  made  to  liim  by 
Ananias.  Acts  .\xii.  14.  "  The  God  of  our  fathers  hath  chosen 
liiee,  that  th(»u  shouidst  know  his  will,  and  see  that  Just  One, 
and  shouidst  hear  the  words  of  his  mouth."  That  he  had  thus 
seen  imn,  it  is  not  necessary  to  prove.  See  I  Cor.  xv.  8;  Acts 
ix.  5.  17.  The  inference  which  we  here  draw  is,  that  lie  was 
permiiied  to  see  the  Lord  Jesus  in  an  extraordinary  manner, 
for  the  express  purpose  of  qualifying  him  to  be  invested  with 
tlie  peculiaritij  of  the  apostli-ship.  This  inference,  sufficiently 
clear  from  the  very  statement,  we  shall  now  proceed  to  put 
beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt. 

We  turn,  then,  to  another  account  which  Paul  has  given  of 
his  call  to  the  apostlesliip,  1  Cor.  ix.  1,  2;  "  Am  I  not  an  apos- 
tle ?  Am  I  not  free  ?  Have  I  not  seen  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  ?" 
We  adduce  this  passage  as  proof,  that  to  have  seen  Jesus 
Christ  was  considered  as  an  indispensable  qualification  for  the 
apostleship.  So  Paul  regarded  it  in  his  own  case.  We  adduce 
it  also  for  another  purpose,  viz.,  to  strengthen  our  main  position, 
that  the  Apostles  were  designated  to  their  office  specifically  as  wit- 
nesses to  the  character  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  If  this  was 
not  the  design,  we  ask,  Why  does  Paul  appeal  to  the  fact  tiiat 
lie  had  seen  the  Saviour,  as  proof  that  he  was  qualified  to  be  an 
apostle?  And  we  further  ask,  with  emphasis,  If  tiie  Apostles, 
as  Episcopalians  pretend,  did,  in  virtue  of  their  office,  possess 
"superiority  in  ministerial  powers  and  rights,"  why  did  not  Paul 
once  hint  at  the  fact  in  this  passage  ?  His  express  object  was  to 
vindicate  his  claim  to  the  apostleship.  In  doing  this,  he  appeals 
to  tliiit  which  we  maintain  to  have  constituted  the  peculiarity  of 
the  office,  his  being  "  witness''^  to  the  Saviour.  In  this  instance 
we  have  a  circumstance  of  which  Paley  would  make  much  in 
an  argument,  if  it  f(;ll  in  with  the  design  of  the  "  llora  Paiilin  '- 
We  claim  the  privilege  of  making  as  much  of  it  U[)oii  the  que.s- 
tion,  whether  the  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic  office  was  '■'■supe- 
riority of  ministerial  powers  and  rights." 

We  have  now  examined  all  the  passages  of  .Scripture  which 
state  the  design  of  the  apostleship.     And  we  have  shown,  if  we 
6* 


66  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

mistake  not,  that  the  ground  of  the  distinction  between  the 
"  apostles  and  elders,"  '■  the  apostles,  and  elders,  and  brethren," 
was  not  that  the  former  had  superiority  of"  ministerial  powers 
and  rights."  We  might  leave  the  argument  here;  for  if  the 
Episcopalians  cannot  make  out  this  point  to  entire  satisfaction, 
all  that  is  said  about  successors  in  the  apostolic  office,  and  about 
perpetuating  apostlesliip,  must  be  nugatory  and  vain.  But  we 
nave  an  independent  topic  of  remark  here  ;  and  one  which 
bears  on  the  subject,  therefore,  with  all  the  force  of  a  cumula- 
tive'argument.  To  the  consideration  of  this,  we  are  led  by  the 
next  position  of  Dr.  Onderdonk.  This  is  stated  in  the  following 
words  :  that  "  there  was  continued,  as  had  begun  in  the  apos- 
tles, an  order  of  ministers  su'perior  to  the  elders."  p.  16.  This 
he  attempts  to  prove,  on  the  ground  "that  there  is  no  scriptural 
evidence  that  mere  elders  (presbyters)  ordained."  pp.  16-23. 
And  that  "  the  above  distinction  between  elders  and  a  grade 
superior  to  them,  in  regard  especially  to  the  power  of  ordaining, 
was  so  persevered  in  as  to  indicate  that  it  was  a  permune)it 
arrangement,  and  not  designed  to  be  but  temporary,  pp.  23-29. 
We  shall  reverse  the  order  of  this  argument. 

In  the  inquiry,  then,  whether  this  distinction  was  continued, 
or  persevered  in,  we  might  insist  on  what  has  been  already 
shown,  as  decisive.  If  the  original  distinction  was  what  we 
have  proved  it  to  be,  it  could  not  be  persevered  in,  without  (as 
in  the  case  of  Paul)  a  personal  direct  manifestation  of  the 
ascended  Saviour,  to  qualify  every  future  incumbent  for  the 
apostleship.  1  Cor.  ix.  1.  No  modern  "bishop,"  we  presume, 
will  lay  claim  to  this.  Tlie  very  supposition  that  any  such 
revelation  was  necessary,  would  dethrone  every  prelate,  and 
prostrate  every  mitre  in  Christendom. 

But  we  have,  as  before  remarked,  an  independent  train  of 
arguments  on  this  point.  It  is  evident  that  the  whole  burden  of 
proof  here  lies  on  the  Episcopalian.  He  maintains  that  such  an 
original  distinction  existed,  and  that  it  was  perpetuated.  Both 
these  positions  we  deny.  The  first  we  have  shown  to  be  un- 
founded, and  have  thus  virtually  destroyed  the  other.  We  pro- 
ceed, however,  to  the  comparatively  needless  task  of  showing 
that  Dr.  Onderdonk's  second  position  is  equally  unfounded.  His 
evidence  we  shall  examine  as  we  find  it  scattered  throughout  the 
tract  before  us. 

The  first  argument  is,  that  "  some  are  named  apostles  in 
Scripture,  who  were  not  thus  appointed,  (i.  e.  by  the  Saviour 
himself,)  as  Matthias,  Barnabas,  and  probably  James,  the 
brother  of  our  Lord,  all  ordained  by  mere  human  ordainers. 
Silvanus  also,  and  Timothy,  are  called  "  apostles  ;"  and  besides 
AndronicLis  and  Junia,  others  could  be  added  to  the  list.  {).  15. 

The  argument  here  is,  that  the  nawe  "  apostle"  is  given  to 
them,  and  that  they  held,  llierefore,  the  peculiar  office  in  ques- 
tion. But  the  mere  circumstance  that  they  had  this  name, 
would  not  of  itself  establish  this  point.    It  is  not  necessary,  we- 


TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  ©7 

presume,  to  apprize  our  readers,  that  tlie  word  apostle  meang 
one  who  is  senl,  and  may  be  applied  to  any  person  empi(jyed  to 
deliver  a  message;  and  in  a  general  sense,  to  any  minister  of 
religion,  or  to  any  one  sent,  to  proclaim  the  message  of  life. 
Thus  in  John  xiii.  16,  it  is  applied  to  nui/  messenger,  sustaining 
the  same  relation  to  one  who  sends  him  thai  the  servant  does  to 
his  master.  '■  The  servant  is  not  greater  than  his  lord,  [master] 
iieillier  he  that  is  sent,  oTrdaroAoj,  ureater  than  he  that  sent  liiin." 
Thus  it  is  applied  (Philip,  ii.  25)  to  Epaphrodilus  not  as  an 
apostle  in  the  specific  sense  of  the  term,  but  as  a  messenger,  sent 
by  the  Church  at  Piiilippi  to  supply  the  wants  of  Paul.  (Comp. 
Philip,  iv.  18.)  "Epapliroditus,  my  brother  and  companion  in 
labor,  but  your  messenger^'  Va^  ^f  aTrSaroUv,  yonr  apostle.  Thus 
also  in  2  Cor.  viii.  23,  it  is  applied  to  the  "  brethren,"  ''the  mes- 
sengers of  the  churches  ;"'  "  our  brethren  are  the  messengers  of 
the  churches,''''  iirdaroXoi  iKKSricidv.  Tlicsc  passages  show,  beyond 
a  question,  tliat  the  name  is  often  used  in  the  New  Testament 
in  its  generic  signification,  and,  consequently,  the  mere  fact  that 
it  is  applied  to  an  individual,  is  not  proof  that  he  was  an  apostle 
in  its  specific  sense, — the  only  sense  which  would  be  of  value 
in  the  argument  of  the  Episcopalian.  The  connexions,  the 
circumstances,  are  to  determine  its  meaning.  We  make  this 
remark,  in  accordance  with  the  judicious  observation  of  Dr. 
Onderdonk,  p.  13,  ".4  little  reflection  and  practice  will  enable 
any  of  our  readers  to  look  in  Scripture  for  the  several  sacred 
OF F\c£9, independently  of  the  names  tlier'e  or  elsewhere  given  to 
them.:' 

The  question  then  is,  whether  the  name  apostle  is  so  given  to 
the  persons  here  designated,  as  to  show  that  it  is  used  in  its 
strict  specific  sense. 

The  first  case  is  that  of  "  Matthias."  The  reason  why  the 
name  was  given  to  him  we  have  already  shown.  He  was  an 
apostle  in  the  strict,  proper  sense,  because  he  was  chosen  to  be 
a  "  witness"  of  the  resurrection  of  the  Saviour.  Acts  i.  22. 

The  second  case  is  that  of  Barnabas.  He  is  once  called  an 
apostle.  (Acts  xiv.  14.)  That  he  was  not  an  apostle  in  the  strict, 
proper  sense.  Dr.  Onderdonk  has  himself  most  laboriously  and 
satisfactorily  proved.  In  his  argument  against  Presbyterian 
ordination,  (pp.  16,  17,)  he  has  taken  much  pains  to  show  that 
Barnabas  was  set  apart  (Acts  xiii.  1-3)  "  to  a  special  missionary 
work;"  "  was  merely  set  apart  to  a  particular  field  of  duty;" 
that  is,  was  sent  as  a  messenger  of  the  Church  to  perform  a  par- 
ticular piece  of  work.  It  is  observable  that  before  this,  Barnabas 
is  called  merely  "a  prophet  and  teacher;"  (Acts  xiii.  1-11  ;) 
that  he  is  called  an  apostle  in  immediate  connexion  with  this 
designation,  and  nowhere  else.  Acts  xiv.  14.  How  Dr.  Onder- 
donk, after  having  shown  so  conclusively,  as  we  tliink,  that  the 
transaction  at  Antioch  was  not  a  Presbyterian  ordination  ;  that 
il  was  a  mere  designation  to  a  particular  field  of  labor,  slioidd 
persist  in  maintaining  that  Barnabas  was  an  apostle,  in  tlie  strict 


68  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

sense,  as  having  a  "  superiority  of  ministerial  rights  antl  powers," 
we  profess  our  inability  to  conceive.  We  shall  thus  dismiss  the 
case  of  Matlliias  and  Barnabas. 

The  next  case  is  "  prohnbly  James,  the  brother  of  our  Lord." 
The  use  of  the  word  probably,  here,  sl)ows  a  wish  to  jiress  cases 
into  the  service,  which  we  ngret  to  see  in  a  tract  making  strong 
pretensions  to  strict  demonstration:  (comp.  pp.  3,  11,  16,  23, 
&c. :)  but  it  evinces  a  deficienci/  of  strong,  palpable  instances, 
which  betrays  tiie  conscious  feebleness  of  the  argument.  "  James, 
the  Lord's  brother,"  is  once  mentioned  as  an  apostle:  Gal.  i.  19. 
Rut  it  could  not  have  escaped  the  recollection  of  Dr.  Onderdouk 
that  there  were  two  of  the  name  of  James  among  the  Apostles 
in  the  specific  sense  of  the  term  ;  viz.  James  the  brother  of  John, 
and  son  of  Zebedee,  and  James  the  son  of  Alpheus.  Matt.  x.  3; 
Luke  vi.  15.  Nor  can  it  be  unknown  to  liim,  that  the  word 
brother  was  used  by  tlie  Hebrews  to  denote  a  relative  more 
remote  than  that  which  is  designated  by  the  ordinary  use  of  the 
word  among  ns;  and  Xhal  Alpheus  was  probably  a  connexion  of 
the  family  of  our  Lord.  What  proof,  then,  is  there,  that  he  was 
not  referred  to  in  the  passasje  before  us?  As  this  case  is 
alleged  to  have  only  a  probabiliti/  in  its  favor,  we  consider  it 
disposed  of. 

Sylvanus  and  Timothy  are  the  next  mentioned.  As  their 
claim  to  be  considered  apostles  rests  on  the  same  foundation,  so 
far  as  the  name  is  any  evidence,  we  shall  dispose  of  these  cases 
by  considering  that  of  Timothy  at  length  in  a  subsequent  part  of 
the  argument. 

The  remaining  cases  are  those  of  Andronicus  and  Junia.  The 
ftnmdalion  for  their  claim  to  be  enrolled  as  apostles,  is  the  fol- 
lowing mention  of  them  by  Paul:  Rom.  xvi.  7:  "Salute  Andro- 
nicus and  Junia,  my  kinsmen,  who  are  of  vote  among  the  Apos- 
tles^'''' biTivf'i  eiciv  imaijfiot  iv  toXs  anoardXai;.  On  this  claim  We  remark  ; 
(I.)  Admitting  tlial  liiey  are  here  c«/Z«Z apostles,  the  name,  as  we 
tiave  proved,  does  not  imply  that  they  had  any  "  superiority  of 
ministerial  rights  and  powers."  They  miffht  have  been  distin- 
guished as  messengers,  or  laborers,  like  Epaphroditus.  (2.)  It 
is  clear  that  tlie  Apostle  did  not  mean  to  give  them  the  name  of 
apostles  at  all.  If  he  had  designed  it,  the  phraseology  would 
have  been  different.  Comp.  Rom.  i.  1  ;  1  Cor.  i.  1  ;  2  Cor.  i.  1 ; 
Philip,  i.  1.  (3.)  All  that  the  expression /anZy  implies,  is,  that 
they,  having  been  early  converted,  (Rom.  xvi.  7,)  and  being 
acquainted  with  the  Apostles  at  Jerusalem,  were  held  in  hioh 
esteem,  by  them;  the  Apostles  regarded  them  with  confidence 
and  affection.     We  consider  this  case,  therefore,  as  disposed  of.* 

The  next  point  of  proof  in  the  tract  before  us,  "  that  the  dis- 


*  Dr.  Onrlerdonk  s«ys  that  Calvin,  in  his  Insiitiites,  "  nllows  AnHronicns  and 
Juiii.i  to  have  Ijeen  apostles  ;"  but  lie  ought  to  have  added  that  Calvin,  in  liis  Com- 
mentary on  the  passa£(e,  written  at  a  later  period,  denies  that  they  were  apostles  in 
the  8pec{/ic  sense  of  the  term. 


TESTED   BY  SCRIPTURE.  69 

tinction  between  elders  and  a  grade  superior  to  them,  in  regard 
especially  to  the  power  of  ordaining,  was  so  persevered  in  as  to 
iiKlicale  lliat  it  was  a  permanent  arrangement,"  is  drawn  from 
the  charge  given  by  the  Apostle  Paul  lo  the  elders  of  Ephesiis. 
Aels  XX.  28-35.  Tiie  point  of  tliis  evidence,  as  we  understand 
it,  is  tills.  Paul  charges  t;ie  elders  at  Ephesus  to  "lake  heed  to 
themselves," — "  to  take  heed  to  all  the  flock  over  which  the 
Holy  Ghost  had  made  them  overseers. — to  feed  the  Church  of 
Gon, — to  watch  against  the  grievous  wolves  that  would  assail 
the  flock,"  «S:c.  In  all  tills,  we  are  told,  there  is  not  a  word 
respecting  the  power  of  ordaining,  nor  any  thing  which  siiovvs 
that  they  had  the  power  of  clerical  discipline.  "No  power  is 
intimated  to  depose  from  office  one  of  their  own  number,  or  an 
unsound  minister  coming  among  them."  They  are  to  "  tend" 
or  "rule"  the  flock  as  sliepherds;  "for  shepherds  do  not  tend 
and  rule  shepherds."  pp.  23,  24. 

'J'his  is  affirmed  to  be  the  sole  power  of  these  elders.  In  con- 
nexion with  this  we  are  asked  to  read  the  Epistles  to  Timothy, 
— the  power  there  given  "personally  to  Timothy  at  Ephesus,^'' 
(p.  23.)  or  as  it  is  elsewhere  expressed.  "  Compare  now  with 
this  sum  total  of  power  assigned  to  mere  elders,  or  presbyters, 
that  of  Timothy  at  Ephesus,  the  very  city  and  region  in  which 
those  addressed  by  Paul,  in  Acts  xx.,  resided  and  ministered." 
p.  25.  In  those  epistles  it  is  said  that  the  "right  of  governing 
the  clergy,  and  ordaining,  is  ascribed  to  him  personally  ;"  and 
numerous  undisputed  passages  are  then  adduced,  to  show  that 
Timothy  is  addressed  as  having  this  power.  1  Tim.  i.  18;  iii. 
14.  15;  iv.  6;  i.  3;  v.  19-21,  &c.,  &c. 

Now  this  argument  proceeds  on  the  following  assumptions, 
viz. — 1.  That  Timothy  was  called  an  apostle  ;  was  invested  with 
the  same  powers  as  the  Apostles,  and  was  one  of  their  success- 
ors in  the  office.  2.  That  he  was,  at  the  time  when  Paul  gave 
his  charge  to  the  elders  at  Miletus,  bishop  of  Ephesus.  3.  That 
the  "elders"  summoned  to  Miletus,  were  ministers  of  the  Gospel 
of  the  Second  order,  or  as  they  are  now  termed,  usuallv,  priests, 
in  contradistinction  from  bishops  and  deacons.  If  these  points 
are  not  made  out  from  tiie  New  Testament,  or  if  any  one  of  them 
fails,  this  argument  for  "  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture,"  will 
be  of  no  value.  We  shall  take  them  up  and  dispose  of  them  in 
their  order. 

The  first  claim  is,  that  Timothy  is  called  an  "  apostle,"  and 
was,  therefore,  clothed  with  apostolic  powers.  This  claim  is 
advanced  on  p.  15.  "  Silvanus  also,  and  Timothy,  are  called 
'  a[)ostles,'"  and  the  claim  is  implied  in  the  whole  argument, 
and  is  essential  to  its  validity.  The  pro^^ on  which  this  claim 
is  made  to  rest,  is  contained  in  1  Tliess.  i.  1,  compared  with 
1  The.ss.  ii.  6.  Paul,  Silvanus,  and  Timothy,  are  joined  together 
in  the  commencement  of  the  epistle,  as  writing  it  to  the  Church  at 
The-ssalonica ;  and  in  ch.  ii.  6,  the  following  expression  occurs, 
'  Nor  of  man  sought  we  glory  — when  we  might  have  been  bur- 


70  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

densome  as  (he  apostles  of  Christ."  This  is  the  sole  proof  of 
the  aposHeship  of  Timothy, — of  wliich  so  miich  is  made  in  the 
Episcopal  coniroversy,  and  wliich  is  usually  appealed  to  as  itself 
snlKcieiil  to  settle  the  question. 

Now,  without  insisting  on  the  ponit  which  we  have  made  out, 
llial  the  apostolic  office  was  conferred  not  to  impart  "  superi- 
ority of  ministerial  rights  and  powers,"  but  to  establish  every 
where  the  great  doctrine  of  the  truth  of  Christianity,  and  that, 
consequently,  //'Timothy  is  called  an  apostle,  it  is  only  in  llie 
generic  sense  of  the  word,  to  which  we  have  adverted,  and  that 
Paul  might  also  on  this  occasion  speak  of  himself,  as  joined 
with  I'imotiiy  and  Silvanns,  as  a  inessenger  of  the  churches; 
(conip.  Acts  xiii.  2  ;  xiv.  14  ;  Rom.  xvi.  25  ;  2  Cor.  viii.  23  ;)  not 
to  insist  on  this  position,  we  shall  dispose  of  this  claim  by  the 
following  considerations.  1.  The  passage  does  not  fairly  imply 
that  Timothy  was  even  called  an  apostle.  For  it  is  admitted  in 
the  tract,  (p.  15.)  that  "  it  is  not  unusual  for  St.  Paul  to  use  the 
plural  number  of  himself  only."  It  is  argued  indeed,  that  the 
words  "  apostles,"  and  ''  our  own  souls,"  (v.  8.)  being  inappli- 
cable to  the  singular  use  of  the  plural  number,  hence  the  "  three 
whose  names  are  at  the  head  of  the  epistle,  are  here  spoken  of 
jointly."  But  if  Paul  used  the  plural  number  as  applicable  to 
himself,  would  it  not  be  natural  for  him  to  continue  its  use,  fflid 
to  employ  the  adjectives,  &c.,  connected  with  it  in  the  same 
number?  Besides,  there  is  conclusive  evidence  that  Paul  did 
not  intend  to  include  the  "  three"  named  at  the  head  of  the 
epistle,  in  his  expression  in  ver.  6.  For  in  the  verses  immediately 
preceding,  mention  is  made  that  "we  had  suffered  before,  and 
were  shamefully  treated,  as  ye  know,  at  Philippi,"  &c.  Now  it 
is  capable  of  demonstration,  that  Timothy  was  not  present  at 
that  lime,  and  was  not  engaged  in  those  labors,  or  subjected  to 
those  sufferings  at  Philippi.  Acts  xvi.  12,  19;  xvii.  1-4.  It 
follows,  tiierefore,  that  Paul  did  not  intend  here,  to  imply  that 
"  ihe  three  named  at  the  head  of  the  epistle"  were  apostles;  and 
that  he  either  intended  to  speak  of  himself  alone,  in  ver.  6,  or 
what  is  more  probable,  that  he  spoke  of  himself  as  one  of  tiie 
apostles,  and  of  what  the  apostles  might  do  in  virtue  of  their 
office;  that  is,  that  they  might  be  burdensome,  or  might  "  use 
authority,"  as  in  the  margin. 

Our  next  proof  that  Timothy  was  not  an  apostle,  is,  that  he  is 
expressly  distinguished  from  Paul,  as  an  apostle;  that  is,  in 
the  same  verse,  Paul  is  careful  to  speak  of  himself  as  an  apos- 
tle, and  of  Timothy  as  7iot  an  apostle.  Thiis,  2  Cor.  i.  1,  '•  Paul 
an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  Timothy  our  brother.''^  Again, 
Col.  i.  1,  "  Paul  an  apostle  of  Jescs  Christ,  and  Timothy  our 
brother.''^  Now,  our  argument  is  this,  thai  if  Paul  regarded 
Timothy  as  an  apostle,  it  is  remarkable  that  he  should  be  so 
careful  to  make  this  distinction,  when  his  own  name  is  men- 
tioned as  an  apostle.  Why  did  he  not  also  make  the  same 
hoaorable  mention  of  Timothy  ? — Will  some  of  our  Episcopa 


TESTED   BY   SCRIPTDRE.  71 

friends  be  kind  enough  to  state  ichy  this  distinction  is  made? — 
Tlie  distinction  is  the  more  rennir]s.able,  from  tlie  next  con- 
sideration to  be  adduced,  which  is,  that  Paul  is  so  cautious 
on  this  point,  so  resolved  not  lo  call  Timothy  an  apostle,  that 
when  their  names  are  joined  together,  as  in  any  sens;;  claiming 
the  same  appellation,  it  is  not  as  apostles,  but  as  servauis.  Philip. 
i.  1  :  "  Paul  and  Timotheus,  the  servants  of  Jesus  Christ." 
See  also,  1  Thess.  i.  1 ;  2  Thess.  i.  1.  These  considerations  put 
it  beyond  debate  in  our  view,  that  Timothy  is  net  called  an 
apostle  in  the  New  Testament.  Tiiis,  it  will  be  perceived,  is  an 
important  advance  in  our  argument. 

The  second  claim  for  Timothy  is,  that  he  was  bishop  of 
Ephesus.  This  claim  is  essential  to  the  argument  of  Dr.  Onder- 
donk,  and  is  everj'  where  implied  in  what  lie  says  of  Timotliy. 
See  pp.  23,  25.  Proof  is  not  indeed  attempted  ;  but  it  is 
assumed  as  a  conceded  point.  Now  tiiis  point  should  have  been 
made  out,  for  it  is  not  one  of  those  which  we  are  disposed,  by 
any  means,  to  concede.  It  is  to  be  remembered,  too,  that  it  is  a 
point  wliich  is  to  be  made  out  from  t/ie  N'eio  Testament,  for  our 
inquiry  is,  whetlier  Episcopacy  can  be  defended.  "  by  Scripture." 
Let  us  see  how  this  matter  stands. 

It  may  be  proper  here  to  remark,  that  the  subscription  at  the 
close  of  tlie  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy,  "ordained  first  bisliop 
of  tlie  cliurch  of  the  Epiiesians,"  &.c.,  is  admitted  on  all  hands 
not  to  be  iiis[)ired,  and,  therefore,  is  of  no  authority  in  this  argu- 
ment. Assuredly  Paul  would  not  close  a  letter  in  tliis  way,  by 
seriously  informing  Timothy  that  he  wrote  a  second  epistle  to 
him,  &.C.,  and  by  appending  this  to  the  letter.  By  whom  tiiese 
subscriptions  to  the  epistles  were  added,  is  unknown.  Some  of 
them  are  manifestly  false ;  and  none  of  them,  tliough  true,  are 
of  any  authority.  The  subscription  here  belongs,  we  believe,  to 
the  former  class. 

Now,  how  does  the  case  stand  in  the  New  Testament,  with 
respect  to  Timothy?  What  testimony  does  it  afford,  as  to  his 
l)eing  "bishop  of  Ephesus?"  A  few  observations  will  save 
furllier  debate,  we  trust,  on  this  subject. 

1.  It  is  admitted  that  he  was  not  at  Ephesus,  at  the  time  when 
Paul  made  his  address  to  the  elders  at  Miletus.  Thus,  p.  25, 
"  Ephesus  was  without  a  bishop  when  Paul  addressed  the  elders, 
Timothy  not  having  been  placed  over  that  church  till  some  time 
afterward."  Here,  then,  was  one  diocese,  or  one  collection  of 
churches,  which  is  admitted  to  have  been  constituted  without  a 
bishop.  The  presumption  is,  that  all  others  were  organized  in 
the  same  way. 

2.  The  charge  which  Paul  gives  to  the  elders  proves  that 
Timothy  was  not  there  ;  and  proves  furtlier,  that  they,  at  that 
time,  had  no  bishops,  and  that  they  previously  had  none.  Tiiey 
are  charged  to  take  heed  to  themselves,  and  to  all  the  flock,  "  to 
feed"  or  "  to  rule"  the  flock,  «Stc.     But  not  one  word  is  to  be 


72  REVIEW — EP'.SCOPACY 

found  of  their  having  then  any  prelatical  bishop;  not  one  word 
of  Timothy  as  their  Episcopal  leader.  Not  an  exhortation  is 
given  to  be  snbject  to  any  prelate;  not  an  intimation  that  they 
would  ever  be  called  on  to  recognise  any  such  bisliops.  Not 
one  word  of  lamentation  or  condolence  is  expressed,  that  they 
were  not  fully  supplied  with  all  proper  Episcopal  authority. 
All  of  whicii  is  inexplicable,  on  the  supposition  that  they  were 
then  destitute,  and  that  they  would  be  supplied  with  an  officer 
"superior  in  ministerial  rights  and  powers."  Nay,  they  are 
themselves  expressly  called  bishops,  without  the  slightest  inti- 
mation that  there  were  any  higher,  or  more  honorable  prelates 
than  themselves.  Acts  xx.  28  :  "  Take  heed,  llierefore,  to  your- 
selves, and  to  all  the  flock  over  tlie  which  the  Holy  Ghost  liath 
made  you  bishnps,^^  liriaKo-irovi. 

3.  It  is  admitted  by  us  that  Timothy  subsequently  iros  at 
Ephesus,  and  that  he  was  left  there  for  an  important  purpose, 
by  the  Apostle  Paul.  This  was  when  Paul  went  to  Macedonia. 
1  Tim.  i  3.  Tliis  is  the  only  intimation  that  we  know  of,  in 
the  New  Testament,  that  Timothy  was  ever  at  Ephesus  at  all. 
It  is  important,  then,  to  ascertain  wliether  he  was  left  tliere  as  a 
permanent  bishop?  Now  in  settliug  this,  we  remark,  it  is  no- 
where intimated,  in  the  New  Testament,  that  he  was  such  a 
bishop.  The  passage  before  us,  1  Tim.  i.  3,  states,  tliat  when 
they  were  travelling  together,  Paul  left  him  there,  while  he 
himself  sliould  go  over  into  Macedonia.  The  object  for  v.hich 
he  left  him  is  explicitly  stated,  and  that  object  was  not  tliat  he 
sliould  be  a  permanent  bisliop.  It  is  said  to  be  "  to  charge  some 
that  they  leach  no  oiher  doctrine,  neither  to  give  heed  to  endless 
genealogies,"'  &c.  ;  that  is,  manifestly,  to  perform  a  tempurary 
office  of  regulating  certain  disorders  in  the  Church  ;  of  silencing 
certain  false  teacliers  of  Jewish  extraction  ;  of  producing,  in 
one  word,  v/hat  the  personal  influence  of  the  Apostle  himself 
might  have  produced,  but  for  a  sudden  and  unexpected  call  to 
Macedonia.  Acts  xx.  1.  Hence  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  the 
Apostle  designed  this  as  a  temporary  appointment  for  a  specific 
object,  and  that  object  was  not  to  be  prelate  of  the  Cliiirch. 
Thus  he  says,  1  Tim.  iv.  13,  "  Till  I  come,  give  attention  to 
reading,"  &c. :  implying  lliat  his  temporary  office  was  then  to 
cease.  Thus,  too,  referring  to  the  same  purpose  to  return  and 
join  Timothy,  he  says,  1  Tim.  iii.  14, 15:  "These  things  I  write 
unto  thee,  hoping  to  come  unto  thee  shortly  ;  but  if  I  tarry 
long,  that  tiiou  mightest  know  how  thou  oughtest  to  behave 
thyself  ill  the  house  of  Gon,"  &c. ;  implying  that  these  direc- 
tions were  particularly  to  serve  him  during  his  appointment  to 
the  specifc  business  of  regulating  some  disordered  afl^iirs  pro- 
duced by  false  teachers,  and  which  might  require  the  discipline  of 
even  some  of  the  bishops  and  deacons  of  the  Church,  ch.  v.  vi. 
These  directions,  involving  general  principles  indeed,  and  of 
value  to  regulate  h"is  whole  life,  yet  had,  nevertheless,  a  mani- 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  7^ 

fest  special  reference  to  the  cases  which  might  occur  theip,  in 
putting  a  period  to  the  promulgation  of  erroneous  doclrints  liy 
Jewisli  teachers.  1  Tim.  i.  3. 

4.  It  has  been  shown  by  the  late  Dr.  Wilson,  of  Philadelphia, 
from  the  New  Testament  itself,  that  Timothy  was  not  liie  bisiKip 
of  the  church  at  Ephesus.  To  this  argument,  which  is  loo  h)ng 
to  be  inserted  here,  and  which  cannot  be  abridged,  we  can  only 
refer.* 

[In  the  second  edition  of  his  review,  Mr.  Barnes  has  inserted 
at  hirge  the  argument  here  referred  to.  We  extract  it,  therefore, 
from  the  work  of  Dr.  Wilson.  A  different  view  of  the  subject 
will  be  found  in  some  of  our  subsequent  pages.] 

"That  Paul  and  Timothy  were  together  at  Ephesus,  and  that 
Paul  left  him  there  when  he  went  on  some  occasion  into  Mace- 
donia, may  be  plainly  inferred  from  1  Tim.  i.  3.  'I  besouglit 
thee  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus,  when  I  went  into  IMacedonia.' 
The  time  to  which  there  is  here  an  allusion  is  the  more  easily 
ascertained,  because  the  Apostle  is  recorded  to  have  been  twice 
only  at  Ephesus;  on  the  first  occasion,  he  merely  called  on  his 
voyage  from  Corinth  and  Jerusalem ;  on  the  second,  he  went 
from  Ephesus  into  Macedonia,  according  to  the  words  of  the 
epistle. 

"  That  Timothy  was  left  at  Ephesus,  when  Paul,  expelled  by 
the  riot,  went  into  Macedonia,  obtains  satisfactory  pro  Is.  Before 
he  wrote  his  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  Paul  se:  :  Timothy 
and  Erastus  into  Macedonia,  but  he  himself  rcmai:  d  in  Asia 
for  some  time.  Acts  xix.  22  ;  1  Cor.  v.  17;  xvi.  10.  a\  the  first 
letter  to  the  Corinthians,  which  he  wrote  at  Epliepus,  and  sent 
by  Titus  to  Corinth,  he  mentioned  his  purpose  of  coming  to 
them,  but  not  immediately  ;  of  which  Luke  also  informs  us, 
Acts  xix.  21,  and  desired  them,  if  Timothy  came  to  them,  1  Cor. 
xvi.  10,  11,  to  conduct  him  forth  in  peace,  that  he  might  come 
to  Paul,  then  at  Ephesus,  for  he  looked  for  him,  with  the 
brethren.  When  he  closed  that  letter  he  was  expecting  Timo- 
thy's return,  which  that  letter  might  also  have  hastened.  Paul 
remained  at  Ephesus,  on  this  visit,  the  space  of  three  years. 
Acts  XX.  31.  There  is,  therefore,  no  reason  to  suppose  that  he 
was  disappointed  in  his  expectation  of  the  arrival  of  Timothy, 
from  Corinth,  at  Ephesus,  before  he  went  into  Macedonia;  and 
if  so,  he  might  have  left  liim  there,  as  he  at  some  period  cer- 
tainly did.  1  Tim.  i.  3.  He  had  intended  to  go  by  Corinth  into 
Macedonia,  2  Cor.  i.  15,  16,  but  changed  his  mind  and  went  by 
Troas  thither.  1  Cor.  xvi.  5 ;  2  Cor.  ii.  12,  13.  Whilst  in  Mace- 
donia, he  wrote  his  first  letter  to  Timothy,  for  he  proposed  to 
him  to  remain  at  Ephesus  until  he  should  call  there  on  his  way 
to  Jerusalem.  1  Tim.  i.  3 ;  iii.  14,  15.     The  words  imply  that 


The  Primitive  Government  of  the  Christian  Churches,  pp.  251-262. 
7 


74  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

Paul  might  tarry  some  time  ;  and  that  he  did  so  hefore  he  went 
into  Greece,  is  fairly  implied  in  the  expression,  '  And  when  he 
had  gone  over  those  parts,  and  §iven  them  much  exhortation, 
he  came  into  Greece.'  Acts  xx.  2.  Timolliy  was  advised, 
solicited,  or  besought  {itaptKuXriaa)  to  abide  slili  at  Ephesns,  which 
gave  him  liberty  to  exercise  his  discretion,  but  several  motives 
must  have  influenced  him  to  go  to  the  Apostle.  The  enemies 
at  Ephesns  were  numerous  and  violent;  Timothy  was  young; 
his  affection  for  Paul  ardent;  the  request  of  Paul  that  he  siiould 
abide  at  Ephesns  was  not  peremptory;  and  Paul  told  him  he 
expected  to  tarry  a  long  time.  Also  Timothy  liad  been,  from 
their  commencement,  familiarly  acquainted  with  the  churches 
in  Macedonia  and  Greece.  Accordingly  we  find  Timothy  in 
Macedonia  when  Paul  wrote  his  second  epistle  to  llie  Corinth- 
ians. 1  Cor.  i.  1.  The  Apostle  went  from  Macedonia  into 
Greece,  Acts  xx.  2,  as  he  had  promised  in  tliat  letter,  chapter 
xiii.  1,  and  abode  tliere  three  months.  Acts  xx.  3.  'J'imolhy  was 
with, him  at  Coriiitli,  for  he  sends  his  salutations  to  the  Romans, 
Rom.  xvi.  21,  in  that  famous  epistle  written  from  thence.* 

"  That  there  was  sufficient  time  for  Paul  to  have  written  from 
Macedonia  to  Timothy  at  Ephesus,  and  for  Timothy  to  have 
spent  some  nioiiths  at  Ephesus,  before  he  came  to  Paul  in 
Macedonia,  appears  from  the  time  he  waited  for  Titus  at  Troas, 
2  Cor.  ii.  12,  13;  his  determination  not  to  go  to  Corinth  till  he 
could  do  it  without  heaviness,  2  Cor.  ii.  1  ;  his  distress  in  Mace- 
donia before  Titus  arrived,  2  Cor.  vii.  5;  and  his  success  in 
raising  charities  for  the  saints  in  Judea,  2  Cor.  viii.  2,  3;  ix.  4. 
He  iiad  mtended  to  tarry  at  Ephesus  until  Pentecost,  1  Cor. 
xvi.  8,  but  went  sooner,  Acts  xx.  1.  He  passed  on  to  Jerusalem  at 
another  Pentecost,  Acts  xx.  16;  all  wliicli  time  he  was  in  Mace- 
donia, except  three  mouths.  Acts  xx.  3. 

"  That  Paul  expected  to  spend  so  much  time  in  Macedonia 
and  Greece,  may  be  collected  from  his  intimation,  1  Cor.  xvi.  6, 
that  he  might  spend  the  winter  with  the  Corinthian  church. 
The  Apostle's  purpose  of  sailing  from  Corinth,  was  disap- 
pointed by  the  insidiousness  of  his  own  countrymen;  he  there- 
fore went  up  into  Macedonia  again,  that  he  might  pass  over  to 
Troas  with  his  companions.  Timothy  was  among  those  who 
crossed  first.  Acts  xx.  3,  5.  Paul's  disappointment  in  sailing 
from  Corinth,  and  his  wish  to  reach  Jerusalem  by  Pentecost, 
prevented  the  call  he  intended  at  Ephesus,  1  Tim.  iii.  14,  15,  but 
he  landed  at  Miletus,  and  sent  for  the  elders  of  the  church  at 
Ephesus. 

"  The  directions  of  the  Apostle  in  the  third  chapter  of  the  first 
epistle  to  Timothy,  fairly  imply  that  he  had  left  the  churcli  at 
Ephesus,  according  to  his  usual  practice,  without  ofl3cers,  for  he 
gives  this  evangelist,  not  a  new  commission,  he  already  had 


*  Compare  Acts  xviii.  2,  with  Rom.  xvL  3.     Vide  Acts  19,  xviii.  26:  1  Cor 

iri     10 


xvi.  19 


TESTED   BY    SCRIPTURE.  75 

power  to  ordain,  but  instructions  as  to  the  choice  of  bishops, 
that  is,  presbyters  and  deacons.  These  liad  been  complied  witli 
before  he  landed  at  Miletus.  Acts  xx.  17.  This  record  of  the 
existence  of  elders  at  Ephesus,  compared  with  tlie  directions 
given  to  Timothy,  not  only  renders  it  probable  that  TimoUiy 
had  ordained  them,  but  fortifies  the  presumpiion  tliat  the  fir.st 
epistle  to  Timothy  was  written  in  Macedonia,  before  this  visit 
to  Jerusalem,  and  consequently  before  his  imprisonment. 

'"The  language,  '  I  going  (rop£uo/<uo«)  into  3Iacedonia,  besought 
thee  to  abide  sliU  at  Ephesus,'  did  not  form  a  permanent  con- 
nexion between  Timolliy  and  Ephesus.  At  the  very  greatest 
extent,  the  instructions  given  in  this  letter  were  of  a  continuance 
only  till  Paul  should  come  to  him,  (cuj  Ip^of"'-)  1  Tim.  iv.  13  ; 
iii.  14.  But  it  is  certain  that  Timothy  did  not  remain  at  Ephe- 
sus till  Paul  passed  on  his  way  to  Jerusalem. 

'•  The  second  epistle  to  'I'imothy  will  prove  itself  written  by 
Paul  when  a  prisoner  at  Rome  ;  and  at  least  establishes  the 
absence  of  the  evangelist  from  his  spiritual  father  at  the  time  it 
was  written.  But  he  was  at  Home  in  the  time  of  the  first 
imprisonment,  as  has  been  proved  by  liis  having  been  joined 
Willi  Paul  in  the  letters  to  the  Colossians,  Philippians  and  Phi- 
lemon. Deinas  and  Mark  were  also  there  in  the  first  imprison- 
ment, Col.  iv.  10,  14,  but  absent  at  the  writing  of  the  second  to 
Timothy.  2  Tim.  iv.  10,  11. 

'"It  is  liierefore  an  error  to  suppose  it  to  have  been  written 
before  the  episiles  to  the  Colossians,  Philippians,  and  Philemon, 
during  the  first  iinjirisoument.  Also  m  2  Tim.  iv.  20,  Paul  tells 
him  Erastus  abode  at  Corinth,  but  this  needed  not  to  have  been 
told  to  Timothy,  if  Paul  meant  that  Erastus  abode  at  Corinth 
wiien  lie  went  to  Jerusalem,  and  so  to  Koine,  for  Timothy  was 
then  with  him,  and  must  have  known  the  circumslauce  had  it 
been  so.  In  like  manner  he  says,  ibid,  'Trophimus  have  I  left 
at  Miletum,  sick.'  But  Trophimus  was  not  left  at  any  place  on 
the  voyage  to  Jerusalem,  for  he  was  there,  and  the  occasion  of 
the  jealousies  of  the  Jews.  Acts  xxi.  29. 

•'  'I'liese  two  facts,  compared  with  this,  which  appears  in  the 
epistle,  that  it  was  written  by  Paul,  a  prisoner  at  Rome,  afford 
sufhclent  certainty  that  there  was  a  second  imprisonment  when 
this  letter  was  written. 

"  But  it  by  no  means  follows,  that  Timothy  was  at  Ephesus 
when  the  second  epistle  was  written.  This  ought  not  to  be 
assumed,  but  siiown.  U  Timothy  was  then  at  Ephesus,  why 
sliould  he  have  been  told,  'I  have  sent  Tycliicus  to  Epiiesus  ?' 
2  Tim.  iv.  12.  He  must  have  arrived  at  that  place  before  the 
letter,  and  the  fact  could  have  been  then  known.  Also  Tyclii- 
cus needed  no  introduction  to  Timothy.  Had  Timothy  been  at 
Ephesus,  Paul  would  not  have  sent  liiin  to  'I'roas  for  articles  he 
had  left  there.  It  appears  more  probal)le  that  Timothy  was,  at 
the  time  the  epistle  was  sent  to  him,  at  Troas,  or  in  the  neigh- 


76  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

borhood  of  that  place.  The  salutations  will  not  establish  the 
deslination  of  the  epistle.  Oiiesiphoriis  resided  in  Asia,  but  the 
particular  place  of  his  abode  is  not  known.  He  helped  Paul 
both  at  Ephesus  and  Rome.  Also  Aquila,  who  had  resided  at 
Rome,  at  Corintii,  at  Ephesus,  and  again  at  Rome,  was  a  native 
of  Pontus,  on  the  margin  of  the  Euxine.  Trophimus,  whom 
Paul  had  left  at  Mileluni,  was  an  Ephesian.  Acts  xxi.  29.  Mile- 
tus was  near  Ephesus,  -and  Timothy  would  have  known  the 
facts,  imless  Miielum  in  Crete  was  tlie  place. 

"  Jf  Timottiy  was  not  at  Ephesus  when  the  second  letter  was 
written  to  him,  there  is  no  evidence  of  his  being  in  that- city 
after  Paid's  first  imprisonment.  But  if  he  had  been  at  Ephesus 
he  must  have  tlien  left  it,  the  letter  calling  him  to  Rome,  and  the 
sacred  records  speak  not  of  his  return  to  that  city.  The  second 
epistle  assigns  to  Timothy  no  other  duties  than  those  proper  to 
his  general  office  of  evangelist ;  and  bears  no  relation  to  a  par- 
ticular oversight  of  any  church  or  churches. 

"Some  writers  suppose  that  Paul,  when  he  landed  at  Miletus, 
on  a  subsequent  voyage  to  Jerusalem,  left  Timothy  with  the 
elders  of  the  church  at  Ephesus,  '  to  govern  them  in  his 
abseiice.'  But  nothing  of  the  kind  was  spoken  on  the  occasion  ; 
and  instead  of  a  temporary  absence,  Paul  assured  the  elders 
they  should  '  see  his  face  no  more.'  In  1  Tim.  i.  3,  it  is  not  said, 
'  when  I  went  to  Jerusalem,'  but  expressly,  '  I  besought  thee  to 
abide  still  at  Ephesus,  xcheii  I  icent  into  Macedonia.''  Also  it 
has  been  asserted,  that  the  Apostle  having  placed  Timothy  at 
Ephesus  prior  to  his  first  imprisonment,  'wrote  both  his  epistles 
to  Timothy  while -a  prisoner  at  Rome.'  But  Timothy  was 
with  Paul  at  Rome  during  a  part  of  the  first  imprisonment,  for 
he  is  joined  in  the  epistles  to  the  Philippians,  Colossians,  and 
Philemon.  Salutations  also  might  have  been  expected  in  the 
first  epistle  to  Timothy,  had  it  been  written  from  Rome,  as  in 
those  to  the  Philippians,  Colossians,  Philemon  and  the  Hebrews. 
He  was  indeed  absent  from  Rome  during  a  part  of  the  time 
of  the  first  imprisonment,  but  Paul  expected  his  return,  Heb. 
xiii.  23,  and  so  far  was  he  from  hoping  to  come  unto  Timothy 
shortly,  as  expressed  in  1  Tim.  iii.  14,  he  promises,  if  Timothy 
come  sliortly  lo  Rome,  with  him  to  visit  the  Hebrews.  Also  it 
seems  si  range,  if  Timothy  had  been  at  Ephesus  when  tlie 
epistle  to  the  Ephesians  was  sent  by  Tychicus,  Eph.  vi.  21, 
that  no  notice  whatever  should  have  been  taken  of  the  beloved 
youth. 

"  Another  hypothesis  is,  that  Paul,  when  the  Jews  deterred 
him  from  sailing  from  Corinth,  and  he  determined  to  go  through 
Macedonia  to  Jerusalem,  besought  Timothy  to  abide  still  at 
Ephesus  ;  to  which,  when  Timothy  agreed,  he  went  forward 
to  Troas,  with  Aristarchus  and  the  rest ;  and  whilst  waiting 
there  for  Paul,  Timothy  received  the  first  epistle  from  the  Apos- 
tle, written  iu  Macedonia.     But  this  is  a  departure  from  the 


TESTED    BY   SCHIPTURE.  7? 

correct  meaning  of  the  passage,  which  is,  that  Paul  besought 
Timolliy  Trpoaiieuai,  to  coutinue  or  remain  at  the  place  wiiere 
Timoiliy  was  at  the  lime  he  was  thus  entreated.  Those  who 
went  'jL-rore  with  Timothy  to  Troas,  are  represented  to  have 
accompanied  Paul  into  Asia.  Acts  xx.  4,  5.  Tiiis  circumstance 
renders  it  an  improbable  supposition,  that  Paul  sliould  write  so 
long  and  important  a  letter  to  his  fellow  traveller,  whom  he 
must  overtake  in  a  few  days,  and  wholly  unaccountable,  that  he 
should  say  in  tiie  letter,  1  Tim.  iii.  14,  15,  '  These  tilings  write 
I  unto  you,  hoping  to  come  unto  thee  siiortly ;  but  if  I  tarry 
long,'  &c.  That  Paul  should  have  tlius  purposed  to  come  to 
Timothy  unto  Ephesus,  but  really  at  Troas,  and  in  a  few  weeks 
afterward,  without  any  apparent  cause  for  a  change  of  views, 
siiould  have  said  at  Miletus  to  the  elders  of  the  church  of  Ephe- 
sus,  •  I  know  that  ye  all  shall  see  my  face  no  more,'  Acts  xx.  25, 
exhibits  a  fluctuation  approximating  versatility.  If  Timothy 
was  on  this  occasion  left  with  the  officers  of  the  church  at 
Ephcsus,  and  especially,  if  he  was  to  be  thenceforth  their  dio- 
cesan bishop,  it  is  strange  that  not  a  word  of  either  of  those 
circumstances  should  have  been  mentioned  lo  those  elders.  But 
so  far  was  the  Apostle  from  mentioning  their  subordination  unto, 
or  support  of  the  authority  of  young  Timothy,  that  he  enjoins 
them, — '  Take  heed  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock  over 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  maKoitov^  bishops,  to  feed 
the  Church  (^'God,'  &c.  But  as  not  a  word  is  said  of  leaving 
Timothy  at  Miletus,  so  it  is  improbable  that  he  siiould  have 
parted  from  Paul  there,  because  he  appears  to  have  been 
of  liie  company  of  the  Apostle  when  he  arrived  at  Rome, 
where  he  is  joined  with  him  in  the  letters  which  have  been 
mentioned. 

"  Others  allege  that  Paul  visited  Ephesus  after  his  first  impri- 
sonment, left  Timothy  there,  went  into  Macedonia,  and  from 
thence  wrote  to  him  his  first  letter.  They  build  upon  the  cir- 
cumstances, that  whilst  at  Rome  he  had  written  to  Philemon 
to  prepare  him  lodgings  at  Colosse ;  and  tliat  lie  had  told  the 
Philippians,  by  letter,  he  trusted,  he  should  shortly  come  tc 
them. 

"  This  opinion  is  much  more  respectable  than  either  of  the 
former  ;  and  although  several  of  the  fathers  have  positively 
asserted,  what  is  incompatible  with  it,  that  Paul  went  into 
Spain  after  his  first  imprisonment,  according  to  his  purpose 
expressed,  Rom.  xv.  28,  yet,  however  credible  these  holy  men 
were,  their  conjectures  deserve  often  but  little  regard.  That 
Paul  was  atPhilippi  after  his  imprisonment  is  probable,  because 
he  left  Erastus  at  Corinth.  2  Tim.  iv.  20.  Also  ^  may  have 
been  at  Colosse,  if  he  left  Trophimus  at  Miletus  ;  but  the  place 
was  Miletum.  Ibid.  He  entertained  a  purpose  subsequent  to 
those,  of  visiting  Judea  with  Timothy.  Heb.  xiii.  23.  This  may 
have  been  first  accomplished,  and  Timothy  left  in  the  neighbor- 
7* 


78  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

hood  of  Troas,  where  he  remained  till  the  second  epistle  was 
sent  to  him.  But  if  these  purposes  were  effectuated,  which  is 
matter  of  uncertainty,  there  is  not  a  word  to  prove  even  an 
inlenlion  to  visit  Ephesus.  The  letter  to  the  Ephesians  neither 
mentions  Timothy,  nor  any  coming  of  Paul.  But  Tycliicus,  a 
faithful  minister  of  the  Lord,  and  companion  of  tlie  Apostle,  was 
named  as  sent  to  them.  Eph.  vi.  21.  To  the  Ephesians  Paul 
had  said,  that  he  knew  they  should  'see  his  face  no  more,'  and 
it  is  nowiiere  sliown  that  they  did.  The  supposition  that 
nevertheless  Paul  afterward  went  to  Ephesus  with  Timothy, 
left  iiim  there,  with  the  request  to  tarry  till  he  should  return  to 
him,  and  then  went  into  Macedonia,  and  wrote  his  first  epistle 
to  Timothy,  is  entirely  gratuitous,  and  without  tlie  least  reason 
appearing  in  any  exigencies  of  the  Ephesian  chiu'ch,  which  had 
had  three  years  of  Paul's  labors,  and  had  been  afterward  long 
blessed  wiili  tlie  regular  administration  of  the  ordinances  by 
pastors  of  their  own,  besides  help  from  Tycliicus,  and  perhaps 
others. 

"  If  Paul  constituted  Timothy  bishop  of  Ephesus,  it  is  an 
affirmative,  and  ouglit  to  be  proved.  But  Paul  tells  the  presby- 
ters of  Ephesus,  at  Miletus,  that  tiie  Holy  Ghost  had  made  them 
bishops  (cTKTKOTTous)  of  that  churcli.  Those  elders  had  previously 
received  the  powers  which  were  necessary  to  ordaining  others; 
on  Timothy  a  similar  presbytery  laid  their  hands  at  his  ordina- 
tion. If  this  circumstance  will  not  sliow  that  a  presbytery 
could  have  ordained  an  evangelist,  an  apostle  not  being  present, 
because  evangelists  were  extraordinary  officers  of  a  higlier 
grade;  yet  it  must  prove  that  a  presbytery  have  some  power  to 
ordain.  They  were  the  highest  fixed  officers  in  a  church,  and 
tlie  power  of  ordination  was  necessary  to  their  succession. 
They  ci)uld  not  have  been  appointed  coadjutors  to  Timothy, 
in  the  ordination  of  themselves.  And  it  does  not  appear 
lliey  were  ordained  before  the  riot,  when  he  was  left  at  Ephe- 
sus. If  thus,  there  were  no  officers  in  that  church  when  Paul 
left  it,  the  direction  to  Timothy,  who  was  an  evangelist,  to 
ordain  bishops,  that  is,  elders  in  Epiiesus,  was  to  do  no  more 
than  his  duty;  which,  when  accomplished  in  any  church,  gave 
such  bishrtps  or  elders  power  to  continue  the  succession.  If  the 
presbyters  of  particular  churches  had  not  the  power  of  ordina- 
tion, there  has  been  no  succession  in  the  Church  of  Christ 
since  the  deaths  of  the  apostles  and  evangelists  ;  for  their  offices 
expired  with  tliem,  and  there  were  no  officers  of  a  higher  order. 
The  office  of  Timothy  was  given  to  liim  prior  to  his  visiting 
Ephesus.  The  duty  assigned  him  was  afterward  declared  to 
be  the  work^of  an  evangelist.  2  Tim.  iv.  5.  His  appointment 
to  Ephesus  was  temporary,  being  limited,  at  the  furthest,  to  the 
time  when  Paul  should  come  to  him  ;  but  an  earlier  period  of 
its  termination  was  evidently  left  to  his  discretion,  which  he 
exercised  by  coming  to  Paul  into  Macedonia.    Thus  there  was 


TESTED    BY    SCRIPTimB.  79 

a  disruption  of  the  connexion,  if  any  had  been  fixed,  bnt  none 
such  was  intended ;  tlie  epistle  was  neither  a  commission, 
nor  an  ordination,  but  a  mere  letter  of  instruction,  direcimg 
liim  in  tlie  discharge  of  liis  high  and  important  office  of 
evangelist. 

"If  Timothy  returned  to  Epliesus  from  Rome,  which  is  not 
recorded  in  the  Scriptures,  and  died  there,  it  will  not  establish 
that  he  ever  exercised,  or  had  any  other  office  than  that  of  an 
evanoelist." 

5.  The  claim  that  Timothy  ws>s  bishop  of  Ephesus,  is  one  that 
must  be  made  out  by  Episcopalians  from  tlie  New  Testament. 
But  this  claim  has  not  been  made  o\it,  nor  can  it  ever  be. 

6.  The  epistle  to  the  Ephesians  shows  further,  that  at  the 
time  of  writing  that,  there  was  no  such  bishop  at  Ephesus. 
Though  the  Apostle  herein  gives  the  church  various  instruc- 
tions about  the  relations  which  existed,  there  is  not  the  slightest 
hint  that  Timothy  was  there;  nor  is  there  the  least  intimation 
that  any  such  officer  ever  had  been,  or  ever  would  be  set  over 
them. 

Now,  if  it  cannot  be  made  out  that  Timothy  Avas  bishop  of 
Ephesus;  if  the  point  is  not  established  beyond  a  doubt,  then  in 
reading  Paul's  charge  to  the  elders  at  Miletus,  we  are  to  regard 
them  as  intrusted  with  the  care  of  the  church  at  Ephesus.  it  ia 
not  necessary  to  our  argument  to  inquire  whether  they  were 
ruling  elders,  or  presbyters,  ordained  to  preach  as  well  as  to 
rule.  All  tliat  is  incumbent  on  us,  is  to  show  that  the  New 
Testament  does  not  warrant  the  assumption  that  tiiey  were 
subject  to  a  diocesan  bishop.  We  affirm,  therefore,  simply,  that 
Paul  addressed  them  as  intrusted  with  the  spiritual  instruction 
and  government  of  the  church  of  Ephesus,  without  any  refer- 
ence whatever  to  any  person,  either  then  or  afterward  placed 
over  them,  as  superior  in  ministerial  rights  and  powers.  And 
this  point  is  conclusively  established  by  two  additional  consider- 
ations; first,  that  they  are  expressly  called  bishops,  liriaKd-rcvi, 
themselves,  a  most  remarkable  appellation  if  the  Apostle  meant 
to  have  them  understand  that  they  were  to  be  under  the 
administration  of  another  bishop  of  superior  ministerial  powers 
and  rights;  and  secondly,  that  they  are  expressly  intrusted 
with  the  whole  spiritual  charge  of  the  church,  notiiaivav  rhv 
iKKXr/aiav  kt'K.  But  everything  in  this  case  is  fully  met  b)'  the 
supposition  that  they  were  invested  with  the  simple  power  of 
rjclinff.  Dr.  Onderdonk  hiinself  admits  that  the  word  translated 
'•  feed,"  leotfittivuv,  may  be  rendered  to  "  rule."  p.  37.  And  if  this 
point  be  conceded,  the  idea  that  they  were  elders,  in  the  Pres- 
byterian sense,  is  all  that  can  be  proved  from  the  passage.  It  is 
essential  to  the  argument  of  Episcopalians,  that  they  sliotild  be 
able  to  make  out  that  these  elders  not  only  ruled,  but  also 
preached  the  Gospel,  and  performed  the  other  functions  of  their 
"  second  order"  of  clergy. 


80  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

Let  US  now  gather  the  results  of  our  investigation,  and  dispose 
of  the  case  of  Timothy.  We  have  sliown  that  lie  was  not  an 
apostle.  We  have  further  shown  that  he  was  not  bishop  of 
Ephesus.  We  have  thus  destroyed  the  claim  of  the  'permanency 
of  the  apostolic  office,  so  far  as  Timothy  is  concerned.  And  we 
now  insist,  that  the  readers  of  the  New  Testament,  they  who 
wish  to  defend  Episcopacy  by  "Scripture,"  should  read  the  two 
epistles  to  Timothy,  without  the  vain  and  illusory  supposition 
that  he  was  bishop  of  Ephesus.  Agreeing  with  Dr.  Onderdonk, 
that  this  point  must  be  settled  by  the  New  Testament,  and  that 
"  no  argument  is  worth  taking  into  the  account  which  has 
not  a  palpable  bearing- on  the  clear  and  naked  topic — the  scrip- 
tural evidence  of  Episcopacy ^'"  (p.  3,)  we  now  insist  that  these 
epistles  should  be  read  without  being  interpreted  by  the  unsup- 
ported position  that  Timothy  was  the  permanent  bishop  of 
Ephesus.  We  insist,  moreover,  that  that  supposition  should  not 
be  admitted  to  influence  the  interpretation.  With  this  matter 
clear  before  us,  how  stands  the  case  in  these  two  epistles  ?  We 
answer,  thus : — 

(1.)  Timothy  was  sent  to  Ephesus  for  a.  special  purpose, — to 
allay  contentions,  and  prevent  the  spreading  of  false  doctrine. 
1  Tim.  i.  3.  (2.)  This  was  to  be  temporary.  1  Tim.  i.  3 ;  comp. 
iii.  14,  15  ;  iv.  13.  (3.)  He  was  intrusted  with  the  right  of  ordi- 
nation, as  all  ministers  of  the  Gospel  are,  and  with  the  authority 
of  government.  1  Tim.  i.  3;  v.  19-21;  v.  22;  2  Tim.  ii.  2. 
(4.)  Laying  out  of  view  the  gratuitous  supposition  that  he  was 
bishop  of  Ephesus,  the  charge  given  to  Timothy  was  just  such 
a  one  as  would  be  given  to  any  minister  of  the  Gospel  aullior- 
ized  to  preach,  to  ordain,  to  administer  the  ordinances  of  the 
Church,  and  its  discipline.  It  is  just  such  as  is  given  now  to 
men  who  hold  to  the  doctrine  of  ministerial  parity.  The 
"  charges"  which  are  given  to  Presbyterian  and  Congregational 
ministers  at  ordination,  are  almost  uniformly  couched  in  the 
same  language  which  is  used  by  Paul  in  addressing  Timothy; 
nor  is  there  any  thing  in  those  epistles  which  may  not  be, 
and  which  is  not,  in  fact,  often  addressed  to  ministers  on  such 
occasions.  With  just  as  much  propriety  might  some  antiqua- 
rian, hereafter, — some  future  advocate  for  Episcopacy, — collect 
together  the  charges  now  given  to  ministers,  and  appeal  to 
them  as  proof  that  the  churches  in  New-England,  and  among 
Presbyterians,  were  Episcopal,  as  to  appeal  now  to  the  epistles 
to  Timothy,  to  prove  his  office  as  a  prelate.  (5.)  The  epistles 
themselves  contain  evidence  of  the  falsehood  of  the  supposition 
that  there  was  an  order  of  men  superior  to  the  presbyters  in 
"  ministerial  powers  and  rights."  There  are  but  two  orders  of 
ministers  spoken  of  or  alluded  to  in  the  epistles, — bishops  and 
deacons.  There  is  not  the  slightest  allusion  to  any  other  order. 
We  call  the  attention  of  our  readers  here,  to  an  emphatic 
remark  of  Dr.  Onderdonk,  p.  12 ;  "  All  that  we  read  in  the 
New  Testament  concerning  '  bishops,'  is  to  be  regarded  as  per 


TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  81 

taining  to  the  'middle  grade;'  i.  e.  nothing  in  these  epistles,  or 
elsewhere,  wliere  this  term  is  used,  has  any  reference  to  a  rank 
of  ministers  superior  "  in  ministerial  powers  and  rights."  The 
case  liere,  then,  by  the  supposition  of  the  Episcopalians,  is  this. 
Two  epistles  are  addressed  by  an  apostle  to  a  successor  of  the 
apostles,  designated  as  such,  to  retain  and  perpetuate  the  same 
rank  and  powers.  Those  epistles  are  designed  to  instruct  him 
in  the  organization  and  government  of  the  churches.  They 
contain  ample  information,  and  somewhat  protracted  discussions 
on  the  following  topics:  The  office  of  a  presbyter.  The  qualifica- 
tions for  that  office.  The  office  of  the  deacons.  The  qualifica- 
tions for  that  office.  The  qualifications  of  deacons'  wii^es.  1  Tim 
iii.  The  proper  discipline  of  an  elder.  The  qualifications  ol 
those  who  were  to  be  admitted  to  the  office  of  deaconesses. 
1  Tim.  V.  The  duties  of  masters  and  servants.  1  Tim.  vi.  The 
duties  of  laymen.  1  Tim.  ii.  8.  And  of  Christian  females.  1  Tim. 
ii.  9-11.  Nav,  they  contain  directions  about  the  Apostle's  cloak, 
and  his  parchments;  (2  Tim.  iv.  13;)  but  from  the  beginning 
to  the  end,  not  one  single  syllable  respecting  the  existence  of  a 
grade  of  officers  in  the  Church  superior  "  in  ministerial  rights 
anrl  powers  ;"  not  a  word  about  their  qualifications,  of  the  mode 
ol  ordaining  or  consecrating  them,  or  of  Timothy's  fraternal 
intercourse  with  his  brother  prelates;  nothing  about  the  subjec- 
tion of  ihe  priesthood  to  them,  or  of  their  peculiar  functions  of 
confirmation  and  superintendence.  In  one  word,  taking  these 
epistles  by  themselves;"  no  man  would  dream  that  there  were 
any  such  officers  in  existence.  We  ask  now,  whetlier  any  can- 
did reader  of  the  New  Testament  can  believe  that  there  were 
any  such  officers  ;  and  that  two  epistles  could  have  been  written 
in  these  circumstances,  without  the  slightest  allusion  to  their 
existence  or  powers  ?  "  Credat  Judceas  Apella."  We  ask 
whetlier  th^re  can  be  found  now,  among  all  the  charges  wliich 
E[)iscopal  bishops  have  given  to  their  clergy,  any  two  in  which 
there  shall  not  also  be  found  some  allusion  to  the  "  primitive 
and  apostolic  order"  of  bishops  in  the  churches?  It  remains 
for  our  eyes  to  be  blessed  with  the  sight  of  one  Episcopal 
charge,  reminding  us,  in  this  respect,  of  the  charges  of  Paul  to 
Timothy. 

We  now  take  our  leave  of  the  case  of  Timothy.  The  case  of 
Titus,  the  next  in  order,  pp.  26,  27,  we  must  despatch  in  fewer 
words.  The  argument  of  Dr.  Onderdonk,  in  defence  of  the 
claim  respectins  Titus,  does  not  vary  materially  from  that  used 
in  reference  to  Timothy,  p.  20.  It  is,  that  he  was  left  in  Crete 
to  ordain  elders  in  every  city,  and  that  the  powers  of  "ordi- 
nation, admonition,  and  rejection,  are  all  committed  to  Titus 
personally."  Titus  i.  0-9;  iii.  10.  The  only  point  here  which 
requires  a  moment's  examination,  in  addition  to  what  we  have 
said  on  the  case  of  Timothy,  is  the  purpose  for  which  he  was 
left  at  Crete.  Titus  i.  5.  The  claim  of  the  Episcopalians  here  is, 
that  this    indicates  such   a  perseverance   in  the   "  dislinctior 


82 


REVIEW — EPISCOPACi 


between  elders  and  a  grade  superior  to  them,"  as  to  prove  that 
it  was  "  to  be  a  ■permanent  arrangement."  p.  23.  In  otlier 
words,  Titus  was  to  be  a  permanent  bishop  of  Crete,  superior  to 
the  elders  "  in  ministerial  riglils  and  powers."  This  claim  it  is 
necessary  for  them  to  establisli  from  the  New  Testament.  If  there 
are  any  intimations  that  it  was  not  designed  to  be  permanent, 
ihey  will  be  fatal  to  their  argument.  We  affirm,  then,  in  oppo- 
sition to  this  claim,  that  the  case  is  fully  met  by  the  supposition 
that  Titus  was  an  extraordinary  officer,  like  Timothy  at 
Ephesus,  appointed  for  a  specific  purpose.  1.  The  appointment 
Itself  looks  as  if  this  was  the  design,  Paul  had  himself  com- 
menced a  work  there,  which  from  some  cause  he  was  unable  to 
complete.  That  work  he  left  Titus  to  finish.  As  it  cannot  be 
pretended  that  Paul  had  any  purpose  of  becoming  tlie  perma- 
nent bishop  of  Crete;  so  it  cannot  be  pretended  that  Tilus' 
being  left  to  complete  what  Paul  had  begun,  is  proof  that  Paul 
expected  that  Titus  would  be  permanent  bishop.  An  appointment 
to  complete  a  work  which  is  begun  by  another,  when  the  ori- 
ginal designer  did  not  contemplate  a  permanent  employment, 
cannot  surely  be  adduced  in  proof  of  a  permanent  office.  If  I 
am  employed  to  complete  an  edifice  which  is  commenced,  it 
does  not  suppose  that  I  am  to  labor  at  it  all  my  life  ;  still  less 
that  I  am  to  have  successors  in  the  undertaking.  We  presume 
that  this  passage,  to  most  unbiassed  minds,  would  imply  that 
Paul  expected  Titus,  after  having  complete  what  he  had  left  him 
to  do,  should  leave  the  island  of  Crete,  and  accompany  him  in  liis 
travels.  2.  That  this  was  the  fact ;  that  he  liad  no  expectation 
that  Titus  would  be  a  permanent  bishop  of  Crete,  superior  in 
"  ministerial  rights  and  powers,"  is  perfectly  apparent  from  the 
direction  in  this  same  epistle,  ch.  iii.  12,  "  When  I  shall  send 
Artemas  unto  thee,  or  Tychicus,  be  diligent  to  come  unto  me  at 
Nicopolis.''''  Here  we  find  conclusive  proof,  that  the  arrange- 
ment respecting  Titus  in  Crete  was  a  temporary  arrangement. 
To  suppose  the  contrary,  is  to  maintain  a  position  in  the  very 
face  of  the  directions  of  the  Apostle.  Every  thing  in  the  case 
shows  that  he  was  an  extraordinary  officer,  appointed  for  a  spe- 
cific purpose;  and  that  when  that  work  was  effected,  wliich  the 
Apostle  supposed  would  be  soon,  he  was  to  resume  his  station 
as  the  travelling  companion  and  fellow-laborer  of  the  Apostle. 
3.  That  this  was  the  general  character  of  Titus;  that  he  was  so 
regarded  by  Paul,  as  his  companion,  and  very  valuable  to  him 
in  iiis  work,  is  further  apparent  from  2  Cor.  ii'.  12,  13;  vii.  6-13. 
In  the  former  passage  he  says,  that  he  expected  to  meet  him  at 
7'roas,  and  intimates  that  his  presence  and  help  were  very 
necessary  for  him.  "I  had  no  rest  in  my  spirit,  because  I  found 
not  Titus  my  brother."  In  the  latter  place,  (2  Cor.  vii.  6-13,) 
we  find  him  the  companion  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  in  Philippi, 
Again,  (2  Cor.  xii.  18,)  we  find  him  employed  on  a  special 
embassy  to  the  Church  in  Corinth,  in  respect  to  the  collection 
for  the  poor  saints  at  Jerusalem.    Comp.  Rom.  xv.  26.    And 


TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  83 

again  we  find  him  on  a  mission  to  Dalmatia,  2  Tim.  iv.  10. 
Assuredly  these  various  migrations  and  employments  do  not 
appear  as  if  he  was  designed  by  the  Apostle  as  the  permanent 
bishop  of  Crete.  4.  It  is  to  be  presumed  that  Titus  regarded 
the  apostolic  mandate ;  (Titus  Hi.  12  ;)  that  he  left  Crete  in 
accordance  Willi  Paul's  request;  and  as  there  is  no  intimation 
that  he  returned,  as  the  New  Testament  throws  no  hght  on  that 
point,  as  indeed  there  is  not  the  slightest  proof  any  where,  that 
he  died  there,  we  come  to  the  conclusion  that  he  was  employed 
for  a  temporary  purpose,  and  that  having  accomplished  it,' lie 
resumed  his  situation  as  the  companion  of  Paul.  Compare  Gal. 
ii.  1.  It  must  be  admitted,  on  all  hands,  that  the  Episcopalian 
cannot  prove  the  contrary.  Since,  moreover,  our  supposition 
meets  all.  the  circumstances  of  the  case  as  well  as  his,  and  we 
are  able  to  show  that  this  was  the  general  character  of  the  labors 
of  Titus,  we  shall  dismiss  his  case  also. 

The  last  argument  of  Dr.  Onderdonk  is  derived  from  the 
epistles  to  the  seven  churches  of  Asia.  Rev.  ii.,  iii.  This  argu- 
ment is  embodied  in  the  following  position:  "Each  of  those 
cliurches  is  addressed,  not  through  its  clergy  at  large,  but 
through  its  'angel,'  or  chief  officer;  this  alone  is  a  very  strong 
argument  against  parity  in  favor  of  Episcopacy."  "  One  of  those 
churches  is  Ephesus  ;  and  wlien  we  read  concerning  its  angel, 
'  T/tou  hast  tried  them  which  say  they  are  apostles,  and  are  not, 
and  hast  found  them  liars,'  do  we  require  further  evidence  that 
what  Timothy,  the  chief  officer  there,  was  in  the  year  65,  in 
regard  to  the  ftipreme  right  of  discipline  over  the  clergy,  the  same 
was  its  chief  officer  when  this  book  was  written,  in  96  ?"  The 
singular  number,  it  is  added,  is  used  emphatically  in  the  address 
to  each  of  the  angels,  and  "  the  individual  called  '  the  angel,'  is, 
in  each  case,  identified  with  his  church,  and  his  church  Milh 
him."  pp.  27,  28. 

This  is  the  argument;  and  this  is  the  whole  of  it.  We  have 
songlit  diligently  to  see  its  bearing;  but  our  labor  in  doing  it  has 
not  been  crowned  with  very  flattering  success.  We  can  see,  indeed, 
that  those  churches  were  addressed  through  their  ministers,  or 
jiaslors,  called  "  angels;"  but  it  requires  more  penetration  than 
we  profess  to  have,  to  discover  how  this  bears  on  the  precise 
point,  that  there  is  an  order  of  men  superior  to  others  "  in 
ministerial  rights  and  powers."  Such  an  argument  can  be 
foimded  only  on  the  following  assumptions:  1.  That  there  was 
an  inferior  body  of  clergymen,  called  here  "  clergy  at  large." 
A.tsinning-  this  point,  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  make  out  an 
argument  from  the  address  "  to  the  angel.''  But  this  is  a  point 
to  be  proved,  not  to  be  assumed.  We  would  respectfully  ask 
the  writer  of  this  tract,  where  he  finds  an  mtimation  of  the 
existence  of  an  order  of  "c/ero-y  at  Inr^re,^^  m  these  churches, 
fn  the  epistles  themselves  there  is  not  tlie  slightest  Jtiut  of  the 
existence  of  any  such  personages  distinct  from  "  the  angels." 
\ay,  the  very  style  of  address   is   strong   presumption    that 


©4  REVIEW — EPISCOPACV^ 

there  were  not  any  such  inferior  clergymen.  The  only  mention 
which  occurs,  is  of  the  angel  and  the  church.  We  hear  nothing 
of  an  intermediate  order;  nothing  of  any  supremacy  of  "the 
angel"  over  "the  clergy  at  large;"  not  the  least  intimation  of 
any  duty  to  be  performed  by  the  supposed  prelatical  "  angel" 
toward  the  inferior  presbyters.  Why  is  a  reference  to  t'lem 
omitted,  if  they  had  any  existence?  Is  it  customary,  in  address- 
ing "bishops"  now,  to  omit  all  reference  to  their  duties  over  tlie 
inferior  "clergy  at  large?"  This  is  a  point  of  too  much  conse- 
quence to  be  left  now  so  unguarded  ;  and  accordingly  the  rights 
and  duties  of  the  order,  superior  "in  ministerial  rights  and 
powers,"  are  sedulously  marked  out  and  inculcated.*  2.  It  must 
be  assumed,  in  this  argument,  that  there  were  in  each  of  those 
cities  more  churches  than  one;  that  there  was  a  circle,  or  con- 
federation of  churches,  that  would  answer  to  the  modern  notion 
of  a  diocese,  over  wliich  "  the  clergy  at  large,"  of  inferior* 
*'  ministerial  rights  and  powers,"  might  exercise  a  modified 
jurisdiction.  If  this  is  not  assumed,  the  argument  has  no  force  : 
since  if  there  were  but  one  church  in  each  of  those  cities,  the 
"  angel"  was  not  a  bishop  in  the  Episcopal  sense,  but  a  pastor  in 
the  ordinary  acceptation.  Now  this  is  a  point,  which,  in  an 
argument  like  this,  should  not  be  ossmned,  it  should  he  proved, 
or  at  least  rendered  higiily  probable  from  the  New  Testament. 
But  there  is  not  the  slightest  hint  of  any  such  divided  and  scat- 
tered diocesan  organization.  In  each  instance  the  church  is 
addressed  as  one  and  undivided.  "The  angel  of  the  church,^^ — 
not  the  churches, — "  of  Ephesus;"  Rev.  ii.  1.  "The  angel  of 
the  church  in  Smyrna;"  ii.  8:  "the  angel  of  the  church  at 
Thyatira  ;  ii.  18:  "the  angel  of  the  church  in  Sardis;"  iii.  1, 
&c.  In  every  instance  the  address  is  uniform.  The  point  of 
inquiry  now  is,  whether  in  this  address  the  Saviour  meant  to 
intimate  that  there  was  a  p/?fra/?7?/ of  churches,  an  ecclesiastical, 
diocesan  organization?  This  is  a  point  for  Episcopalians  to 
prove,  not  to  assume.  Light  may  be  thrown  on  it  by  comparing 
it  with  other  places  where  a  church  is  spoken  of.  The  pre- 
sumption is  directly  against  the  Episcopalians.  It  is  that  the 
Apostles  would  not  organize  separate  churches  in  a  single  city  ; 
and  that  if  it  were  done  they  would  be  specified  as  the  churches. 
Accordingly,  we  learn  that  the  Apostle  organized  "  a  church" 
at  Corintli.  1  Cor.  i.  I,  2.  Thus,  also,  at  Antioch.  Acts  xiii.  1. 
Thus,  also,  at  Laodicea.  Col.  iv.  16.  And  in  the  epistle  to  one 
of  the  very  churches  under  consideration,  that  at  Ephesus,  it  is 
mentioned  not  as  the  churches  of  Ephesus,  but  as  the  church. 
Acts  XX.  28.  When  Paul  addressed  this  same  church  in  an 
epistle,  it  was  directed,  not  to  the  churches,  but  to  the  saints  at 
Ephesus.  Eph.  i.  1.     But  where  there  were  distinct  churches 


*  We  of  course  lay  ont  of  view,  here,  tlie  case  of  tlie  "  elders  at  Epliesus,"  as 
being  alreadj'  disposed  of;  and  as  not  being  relevant  to  Dr.  Onderdonk's  argument, 
since  that  they  were  "  clergy  at  large,"  is  to  be  proved,  not  assumed. 


TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  85 

organized,  there  is  a  specific  mention  of  the  fact  of  the  plu- 
rality. They  are  mentioned  as  being  many.  Thus,  Acts 
XV.  41:  "Paul  went  through  Syria  confirming  (i.e.  strength- 
ening, establishing,)  the  churches.''''  Rom.  xvi.  4:  "  The  churches 
of  the  Gentiles."  1  Cor.  xvi.  1:  "The  churches  of  Galatia. 
Ver.  19  :  ''  The  churches  of  Asia.  2  Cor.  viii.  1 :  "  The  churches 
"n  Macedonia.  See  also,  2  Cor.  viii.  19,  23;  xi.  8;  Gal.  i.  22; 
ftov.  i.  4.  Now  it  is  neither  proved  that  there  was  a  body  of 
■'  clergy  at  large,"  nor  that  there  were  separate  churches  in 
each  of  those  cities ;  we  ask,  What  is  the  force  of  the  argument 
of  Dr.  Onderdonk  from  this  case  ?  How  does  it  bear  on  the 
point  at  issue  ?     What  has  it  to  do  with  tlie  subject  ? 

With  one  or  two  additional  remarks,  we  shall  dismiss  this 
point.  Tlie  first  is,  that  it  cannot  be  argued  from  the  term 
angel,  given  to  those  ministers,  that  they  were  Episcopal  bish- 
ops. That  term,  as  is  well  known,  has  no  such  exclusive  appli- 
cability to  a  prelate.  It  is  nowhere  else  applied  to  the  ministers 
of  religion  ;  and  its  original  signification,  "a  messenger,"  (»r  its 
usual  application  to  celestial  spirits,  has  no  special  adapteduess 
to  an  Episcopal  bishop.  An  ordinary  pastor — a  messenger, 
sent  from  God;  a  spiritual  guide,  and  friend  of  the  church,  will 
as  fully  express  its  sense,  as  the  application  to  a  prelate.  With- 
out invidiousness,  we  may  observe,  that  prelates  have  not  usually 
evinced  any  such  extraordinary  sanctity,  or  devotion,  as  to 
appropriate  this  title  to  themselves  alone  by  prescriptive  right. 
Our  other  remark  is,  that  the  supposition  that  these  angels 
were  pastors  of  the  churches,  presbyters  on  a  parity  with  each 
other,  and  with  all  others,  will  fully  meet  every  tiling  which  is 
said  of  them  in  the  Book  of  Revelation.  Tliis  supposition,  too, 
will  meet  the  addresses  made  to  them,  better  than  the  assump- 
tion that  they  were  prelates.  Their  union,  as  Dr.  Onderdonk 
remarks,  to  the  church  is  intimate.  "The  angel  is  in  each  case 
identified  with  his  church,  and  his  church  with  him."  Now  to 
which  does  this  remark  best  apply,— to  the  tender,  intimate, 
endearing  relation  of  a  pastor  with  iiis  people;  to  tlie  blending 
of  their  feelings,  interests,  and  destiny,  when  he  is  with  them 
continually;  when  he  meets  them  each  week  in  the  sanctuary  ; 
when  he  administers  to  them  the  bread  of  life;  goes  into  their 
abodes  when  they  are  aflSicted,  and  attends  their  kindred  to  the 
grave:  or  does  it  best  apply  to  the  union  subsisting  between 
the  people  of  an  extended  diocese, — to  the  formal,  unfrequent, 
and,  in  many  instances,  stately  and  pompous  visitations  of  a 
diof-esan  bishop;  to  the  kind  of  connexion  formed  between  a 
pf'opie  scattered  into  many  churches,  who  are  visited  at  intervals 
of  a  year,  or  more,  by  one  claiming  "  a  superiority  in  ministerial 
nahts  and  powers,"  robed  in  lawn,  and  perhaps  willi  the  crosier 
and  mitre,  as  emblematical  of  olTice,  state,  and  power  ;  who 
must  be  a  stranger  to  the  ten  thousand  tender  ties  of  endearment, 
which  bind  as  one  the  hearts  of  a  pastor  and  !i:s  people?  To  our 
minds  it  seems  clear  that  the  account  which  Dr.  Onderdonk  has 
8 


^  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

given  of  the  "  identity"  of  the  angel  and  the  church,  applies  to 
the  iormer,  and  not  to  the  latter.  It  speaks  the  sentiments  of 
our  lieart,  as  respects  the  union  of  a  pastor  and  people.  And 
wliile  we  would  not  allow  ourselves  to  speak  with  disrespect  ot 
the  Episcopal  office,  we  still  feel  that  the  language  of  the 
Saviour,  by  the  mild  and  gentle  John,  to  the  churches  of  Asia, 
breathes  far  more  of  the  endearing  "  identity"  of  the  pastoral 
relation,  than  it  does  of  the  comparatively  cold,  and  distant 
functions  of  one,  who,  in  all  other  lands  but  this,  has  been  invested 
with  his  office  by  the  imposing  ceremony  of  enthroning,  and 
who  has  borne,  less  as  badges  of  affection  than  of  authority,  the 
crosier  and  ihe  mitre. 

We  have  now  gone  entirely  through  Avith  the  argument  of 
Dr.  Onderdonk,  in  proof  that  there  is  an  order  of  men  superior 
"in  ministerial  rank  and  powers."  We  have  intended  to  do 
justice  to  his  proofs,  and  we  have  presented  the  whole  of  them. 

Our  readers  have  all  that  Episcopalians  rely  on  from  the 
Scriptures,  in  vindication  of  the  existence  of  such  an  order  of 
men.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  burden  of  proof  lies  on 
them.  They  advance  a  claim  which  is  indispensable  to  the 
existence  of  their  ecclesiastical  polity.  These  are  the  arguments 
on  which  they  rely.  Whether  their  arguments  justify  the  lan- 
guage of  assumption  which  we  sometimes  hear;  whether  they  are 
such  as  to  render  appropriate  the  description  of  all  people  but 
tiie  members  of  Episcopal  churches,  as  left  to  "  the^uncovenanted 
mercies  of  Goo  ;"*  whether  they  are  such  as  to  prompt,  legiti- 
mately, to  a  very  frequent  reference  to  "  the  primitive  and 
apostolic  order"  of  the  ministry;  or  to  the  modest  use  of  the 
term  "  the  Church,"  with  an  exclusive  reference  to  themselves, 
must  now  be  left  to  the  judgment  of  our  readers. 

It  was  our  intention,  originally,  to  have  gone  somewhat  at 
length  into  a  defence  of  the  scripture  doctrine  of  ministerial 
parity.  But  the  unexpected  length  of  our  article  admonishes  us 
to  close.  We  are  the  less  dissatisfied  with  this  admonition,  because 
we  conceive  the  point  already  made  out.  If  Episcopalians 
cannot  make  good  their  claims  in  reference  to  their  bishop,  it 
follows  of  course  that  ministers  are  on  an  equality.  The  whole 
argument  is  concentrated  in  f/ieiV  claim.  ,  We  take  our  stand 


*  We  do  not  charo;e  Dr.  Onderdonk  with  having  any  sucli  views  and  feelings. 
We  have  great  pleasure  in  recording  iiis  dissent  from  tlie  use  of  such  language,  and 
from  such  consequences,  p.  6.  "An  apparently  formidable,  yet  extraneous  diffi- 
culty, often  raised,  is,  tliat  Episcopal  claims  unchurch  all  Non-episcopal  denomina- 
tions. By  the  present  teriter  this  consequence  is  not  allowed."  We  simply  state 
this,  with  high  gratification.  We  are  happy  also  that  we  are  not  called  upon  to 
reconcile  the  admission  with  the  claim  set  up  in  this  tract,  that  "  tlie  authority  of 
Episcopacy  is  pormanent,  down  to  the  present  age  of  the  world  ;"  (p.  40;)  that  the 
obligation  of  Christians  to  support  bishops,  i.  e.  to  conform  to  Episcopacy,  is  not 
ended  ;  (p.  40;)  that  of"  any  two  ministries  now  existing,  the  former  (Episcopacy) 
is  obligatory,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  latter  ;  fliarity,  p.  39  ;)  and  that  the  position 
cannot  be  evaded,  iiiat  Episcopacy  is  permanently  binding,  '  even  to  the  end  of  ihj 
world.'  "  p.  39. 


TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  87 

here.  It  is  admitted  on  all  hands,  that  there  is  somewhere  in 
the  Church  a  right  to  ordain.  Episcopalians,  with  singular 
boldness,  in  not  a  few  instances  with  professed,  and  in  all  with 
real  exclusivcness,  maintain  that  this  power  lies  only  in  ihe 
bishop.  They  advance  a  claim  to  certain  rights  and  powers  ; 
and  if  that  claim  is  not  made  out,  tlie  argument  is  at  an  end. 
The  power  of  ordination  must  remain  with  those  over  whom 
tliey  liave  set  up  the  power  of  jurisdiction  and  control.  This 
claim,  as  we  have  seen,  is  not  made  out.  If  from  the  authority 
of  the  Now  Testament,  they  cannot  succeed  in  dividing  the 
ministers  of  religion  into  various  ranks  and  orders,  it  follows 
that  the  clergy  remain  on  an  equality. 

On  this  point,  also,  they  are  compelled,  as  we  conceive,  to 
admit  the  whole  of  our  argument.  So  manifest  is  it,  tliat  the 
sacred  writers  knew  of  no  such  distinction;  that  they  regarded 
all  ministers  of  the  Gospel  as  on  a  level ;  that  they  used  the 
same  name  in  describing  the  functions  of  all ;  that  they  addressed 
all  as  having  the  same  Episcopal,  or  pastoral  supervision,  that 
the  Episcopalians,  after  no  small  reluctance,  are  compelled 
at  last  to  ftmit  it.  They  are  driven  to  the  conclusion  tliat  the 
term  bishop  in  the  New  Testament,  does  not  in  a  single  instance 
designate  any  such  officer  as  now  claims  exclusively  that  title. 
Thus  Dr.  Onderdonk  says,  that  "  that  name  (bishop)  is  there, 
(i.  e.  in  the  New  Testament)  given  to  the  middle  order,  or  pres- 
byters ;  and  all  that  we  read  in  the  New  Testament  concerning 
'  bishops,''  (including  of  course  the  words  '  overseers,^  and  '  over- 
sight,''  which  have  the  same  derivation,)  is  to  be  regarded  as 
pertaining  to  that  middle  grade.  It  was  after  the  apostolic 
age  that  the  name  '  bisiiop'  was  taken  from  the  second  order 
and  appropriated  to  the  first."  p.  12.  Tiiis  admission  we  regard 
as  of  inestimable  value.  So  we  believe,  and  so  we  teach.  We 
insist,  therefore,  that  the  name  bishop  should  be  restored  to  its 
primitive  standing.  If  men  lay  claim  to  a  higher  rank  than  is 
properly  expressed  in  the  New  Testament  by  this  word,  we 
insist  that  tliey  should  assume  the  name  apostles.  As  they 
regard  tliemselves  as  the  successors  of  the  apostles;  as  they 
cliiim  that  Timothy,  Titus,  Andronicus,  Junia,  were  called  apos- 
tles, why  should  ntit  the  name  be  retained  ?  The  Christian 
community  could  then  better  appreciate  the  force  of  their  claims, 
and  understand  the  nature  of  the  argument.  We  venture  to 
say,  that  if  the  name  "  apostles"  were  assumed  by  those  who 
claim  that  they  are  their  successors,  E[)iscopacy  would  be  soon 
"  shorn  of  its' beams,"  and  that  the  Christian  world  would  dis- 
abuse itself  of  the  belief  in  the  scriptural  authority  of  any  such 
class  of  men.  We  admit  that  if  "  the  ^/imir  sought"  (p.  12)  were 
to  be  found  in  the  Scriptures,  we  would  not  engage  in  a  contro- 
versy about  the  mere  name.  But  we  maintain  tiialtiie  fact  here 
conceded  is  strong  presumptive  proof  tliat  "  tlie  thing  sought" 
is  iiot  tiiere.  The  name,  lheref(n-e,  is  to  bo  given  up  ;  that  is 
it  is  conceded  by  Episcopalians,  that  the  name  bishop  does  not 


88  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

any  where  in  the  New  Testament  designate  any  such  class  of 
men  as  are  now  clothed  with  the  Episcopal  office. 

We  remark,  now,  that  the  thing  itself  is  practically  abandoned 
by  Episcopalians  thcmselvrs.  Jf  other  denoniinalions  can  be 
true  churches,  (see  the  remark  on  p.  6,  that  the  Episcopal  claims 
do  not  "  unchurch  all  Non-episcopal  denominations,")  then  their 
ministers  can  be  true  ministers,  and  their  ordinances  valid  ordi- 
nances. Their  ministers  may  be  ordained  without  the  impo- 
siiion  of  the  hands  of"  a  bishop;"  and  thus  the  whole  claim  is 
abandoned.  For  what  constitutes  "  Non-episcopal  denomina- 
tions" churches,  unless  they  have  a  valid  ministry,  and  valid 
ordinances  ?  Still  further.  It  is  probably  known  to  our  readers 
that  even  ordination  is  never  performed  in  the  Episcopal  Church 
by  the  bishop  alone.  In  the  "Form  and  Manner  of  Ord>»ring 
Priests,"  the  following  direction  is  given.  "  The  bishop  with 
the  priests  [presbyters]  present,  shall  lay  their  hands  severally 
upon  the  head  of  every  one  that  receiveth  the  order  of  priest- 
hood ;  the  receivers  humbly  kneeling,  and  the  bishop  saying  : 
Receive  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  the  office  and  work  of  a  priest  in 
the  Church  of  God  now  committed  unto  thee  by  the  imposition 
of  OUR  hands,"  &c.  We  know  that  there  is  among  them  a 
difference  of  opinion  about  the  reason  why  this  is  done.  One 
portion  regard  the  bishop  as  the  only  source  of  authority.*  The 
other  suppose  that  ihe  presence  and  act  of  the  presbyters  express 
the  assent  and  confidence  of  ihe  churches,  and  that  it  is  essential 
to  a  valid  ordination.  But,  whichever  opinion  is  maintained,  it 
is,  in  fact,  a  Presbyterian  ordination.  If  not,  it  is  an  unmeaning 
and  idle  ceremony  ;  and  the  presence  of  the  presbyters  is  mere 
pageantry  and  pomp. 

We  have  now  passed  through  the  argument.  Could  we  enter 
farther  into  it,  we  could  prove,  we  iWink,  positivelt/,  that  there 
were  no  ministers  in  the  apostolic  churches  superior  to  pres- 
byters "in  ministerial  powers  and  rights;"  and  that  a  pres- 
bytery did  actually  engage  in  an  ordination,,  and  even  in  the 
case  of  Timothy. t  But  our  argument  does  not  require  it,  nor 
have  we  room.  We  have  examined  the  whole  of  the  claims 
of  Episcopalians,  derived  from  the  New  Testament.  Our  readers 
will  now  judge  of  the  validity  of  those  claims.  We  close,  as 
Dr.  Onderdonk  began,  by  saying,  that  if  the  claim  is  not  made 
out  on  scriptural  authority,  it  has  no  force,  or  binding  obligation 
on  mankind. 

Who  can  resist  the  impression,  that  if  the  New  Testament 
had  been  the  only  authority  appealed  to  in  other  times,  Episco- 
pacy would  long  since  have  ceased  to  urge  its  claims,  and  have 
sunk  away,  with  other  dynasties  and  dominations,  from  the 
notice  of  mankind  ?  On  the  basis  wliich  we  have  now  examined, 
this  vast  superstructure,  this  system  which  has  heretofore  spread 
over  the  entire  Christian  world,  this  system  which,  in  some 

*  Hooker's  Ekic.  Pol.  book  yii.  §  6.  t  1  Tim.  iv.  14, 


TESTED    BY    SCRIPTDKE.  89 

periods  at  least,  has  advanced  most  arrogant  claims,  lias  been 
reared.  The  world,  for  aii;es,  lias  been  called  to  snbmit  lo  vari- 
ous modifications  of  the  Episcopal  p(»wer.  The  world,  with  the 
sinaie  exceptions  of  the  Waldenses  and  Albigenses,  did  for  ages 
submit  to  its  authority.  The  prelatical  domination  rose  on  the 
ruins  of  ilie  liberties  of  cities,  stales,  and  nations,  till  all  tiie 
power  of  the  Christian  world  was  concentrated  in  the  hands  of 
one  man — "  the  servant  of  the  servants  of  God  !"  The  exercise 
gf  that  power  in  his  hands  is  well  known.  Equally  arrogant 
nave  been  its  claims  in  other  modifications.  The  authority  has 
»een  deemed  necessary  for  the  suppression  of  divisions  and 
leresies.  "The  prelates,"  says  Milton,  "as  they  would  have  it 
thought,  are  the  only  maids  of  schism."  That  power  was  felt 
n  the  days  when  Puritan  piety  rose  to  bless  mankind,  and  to 
advance  just  notions  of  civil  and  religious  liberty.  Streams  of 
">lood  have  flowed,  and  tears  of  anguish  have  been  shed,  and 
housands  of  holy  men  have  been  doomed  to  poverty,  and  want, 
and  imprisonment,  and  tears,  as  the  result  of  those  claims  to 
supremacy  and  validity  in  the  Church  of  God.  It  may  surprise 
our  readers  to  learn,  that  all  tlie  authority  from  the  Bible  which 
could  be  adduced  in  favor  of  these  enormous  claims,  has  now 
been  submitted  to  tlieir  observation.  And  we  cannot  repress 
the  melancholy  emotions  of  our  hearts,  at  the  thought  that  such 
power  has  been  claimed,  and  such  domination  exercised  by  man, 
on  so  slender  authority  as  this  ! 

We  have  little  love  for  controversy — we  have  none  for 
denunciation.  We  have  no  war  to  wage  with  Episcopacy. 
We  know,  we  deeply  feel,  that  much  may  be  said  in  favor  of  it, 
apart  from  the  claim  which  has  been  set  up  for  its  authority 
from  the  New  Testament.  Its  past  history,  in  some  respects, 
makes  us  weep  ;  in  others,  it  is  the  source  of  sincere  rejoicing 
and  praise.  We  cannot  forget,  indeed,  its  assumptions  of  power, 
or  hide  from  our  eyes  the  days  of  the  Papacy,  when  it  clothed 
in  sackcloth  the  Christian  world.  We  cannot  forget  the  days, 
not  few,  or  unimportant,  in  its  history,  when  f  ven  as  a  part  of 
the  Protestant  religion,  it  has  brought  "a  numb  and  chill  stupid- 
ity of  soul,  an  inactive  blindness  of  mind,  upon  the  people  by  its 
leaden  doctrine ;"  we  cannot  forget  "  the  frozen  captivity"  of 
the  Church,  "  in  the  bondage  of  prelates;"*  nor  can  we  remove 
from  our  remembrance  the  sufferings  of  the  Puritans,  and  the 
bloody  scenes  in  Scotland.  But  we  do  not  charge  this  on  the 
Episcopacy  of  our  times.  We  do  not  believe  that  it  is  essential 
to  its  existence.  We  do  not  believe  that  it  is  its  inevitable  tend- 
ency. With  more  grateful  feelings,  we  recall  other  events  of 
its  history.  We  associate  it  with  the  brightest  and  iiappiest 
days  of  religion,  and  liberty,  and  literature,  and  law.  We 
remember  that  it  was  under  the  Episcopacy  that  the  Church  in 
England  took  its  firm  stand  against  the  Papacy;  and  that  this 

♦  .Milion. 

8* 


90  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

was  its  form  when  Zion  rose  to  light  and  splendor,  from  the 
dark  night  of  ages.  We  remember  the  name  of  Cranmer, — 
Cranmer,  first,  in  many  respects,  among  the  reformers ;  that  it 
was  by  his  steady  and  unerring  hand,  that,  nnder  God,  the  pure 
Church  of  the  Saviour  was  conducted  through  the  agitating  and 
distressing  times  of  Henry  VIII.  We  remember  that  God 
watciied  over  that  wonderful  man;  that  he  gave  this  distin- 
guished prelate  access  to  tiie  heart  of  one  of  tlie  most  capricious, 
cruel,  inexorable,  blood-thirsty,  and  licentious  monarchs  that 
has  disgraced  the  world  ;  that  God,  for  the  sake  of  Cranmer, 
and  his  Church,  conducted  Henry,  as  "  by  a  hook  in  the  nose," 
and  made  liim  faithful  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  when 
faithful  to  none  else;  so  that,  perhaps,  the  only  redeeming  trait 
in  the  character  of  Henry,  is  his  fidelity  to  this  first  British 
prelate  under  the  Reformation.*  The  world  will  not  soon  forget 
the  names  of  Latimer,  and  Ridley,  and  Rodgers,  and  Bradford  ; 
names  associated  in  the  feelings  of  Christians,  with  the  long 
list  of  ancient  confessors  "  of  whom  the  world  was  not 
worthy,"  and  who  did  honor  to  entire  ages  of  mankind,  by  seal- 
ing tlieir  attachment  to  the  Son  of  God  on  the  rack,  or  amid 
the  flames.  Nor  can  we  forget  that  we  owe  to  Episcopacy 
that  which  fills  our  minds  with  gratitude  and  praise,  when  we 
look  for  examples  of  consecrated  talent,  and  elegant  literature, 
and  humble  devoted  piety.  While  men  honor  elevated  Christian 
feeling;  while  they  revere  sound  learning;  while  they  render 
tribute  to  clear  and  profound  reasoning,  they  will  not  forget  the 
names  of  Barrow  and  Taylor,  of  Tillotson,  and  Hooker,  and 
Butler; — and  when  they  think  of  humble,  pure,  sweet,  heavenly 
piety,  their  minds  will  recur  instinctively  to  the  name  of  Leigh- 
ton.  Such  names,  with  a  host  of  others,  do  honor  to  the  world. 
When  we  think  of  tliem,  we  have  it  not  in  our  hearts  to  utter 
one  word  against  a  Ciiurch  which  has  thus  done  honor  to  our 
race,  and  to  our  common  Christianity. 

Such  we  wish  Episcopacy  still  to  be.  We  have  always 
thought  that  there  are  Christian  minds  and  hearts  that  would 
find  more  edification  in  the  forms  of  worship  in  that  Church, 
than  in  any  other.  We  regard  it  as  adapted  to  call  forth  Christian 
energy,  that  might  otherwise  be  dormant.  We  do  not  grieve 
that  the  Church  is  divided  into  diflferent  denominations.  To  all 
who  hold  essential  truth,  we  bid  God  speed ;  and  for  all  such 
we  lift  our  humble  supplications  to  the  God  of  all  mercy,  that 
he  will  make  them  the  means  of  spreading  the  Gospel  around 


*  It  may  be  proper  here  to  rem;irk,  that  Cranmer  by  no  means  entertained  the 
modern  views  of  tlie  scriptural  auttiority  of  bishops.  He  would  not  have  coincided 
witii  the  cladms  of  the  tract  which  is  now  passing  under  our  review.  He  maintained 
"  that  the  appointment  to  spiritual  otTices  belongs  indifferently  to  bishops,  to  princes, 
or  to  tlie  people,  according  to  the  pressure  of  existing  circumstances.  He  affirmed 
the  original  identity  of  bishops  and  presbyters ;  and  contended  that  nothing  more 
than  mere  election,  or  appointment,  is  essential  to  the  sacerdotal  office,  without  con- 
eecration  or  any  ollxer  solemnity. — Le  Bus'  Life  of  Cranmer,  vol.  i.  p.  197. 


TESTED    BY    SCRIP'njRE.  9  . 

the  globe.  We  ourselves  could  live  and  labor  in  friendliness 
and  love,  in  the  bosom  of  the  Episcopal  Church.  While  we 
have  an  honest  preference  for  another  depariment  of  the  great 
field  of  Christian  action ;  while  providential  circumstances,  and  liie 
suggestions  of  our  own  hearts  and  minds,  have  conducted  us  to 
a  different  field  of  labor;  we  have  never  doubted  that  many  of 
the  purest  flames  of  devotion  that  rise  from  the  earth,  ascend 
from  the  altars  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  and  tliat  many  of  tlie 
purest  spirits  that  the  earth  contains,  minister  at  those  altars,  or 
breathe  forth  their  prayers  and  praises  in  language  consecrated 
by  the  use  of  piety  for  centuries. 

We  have  but  one  wish  in  regard  to  Episcopacy.  We  wish 
her  not  to  assume  arrogant  claims.  We  wish  her  not  to  utter 
the  language  of  denunciation.  We  wish  her  to  follow  the 
guidance  of  the  distinguished  minister  of  her  Church,  whose 
book  we  are  reviewing,  in  not  attempting  to  "unchurch"  otiier 
denominations.  We  wish  her  to  fall  in  with,  or  to  go  in  advance 
of  others,  in  the  spirit  of  the  age.  Our  desire  is  that  she  may 
become  throughout, — as  we  rejoice  she  is  increasingly  becom- 
ing, —  the  warm,  devoted  friend  of  revivals,  and  missionary 
operations.  She  is  consolidated  ;  well  marshalled  ;  under  an 
efficient  system  of  laws  ;  and  pre-eminently  fitted  for  powerful 
action  in  the  field  of  Christian  warfare.  We  desire  to  see  her 
what  the  Macedonian  phalanx  was  in  the  ancient  army  ;  with 
her  dense,  solid  organization,  with  her  unity  of  movement,  with 
her  power  of  maintaining  the  position  which  she  takes;  and 
with  her  eminent  ability  to  advance  the  cause  of  sacred  learn- 
ing, and  the  love  of  order  and  of  law,  attending  or  leading  all 
other  churches  in  the  conquests  of  redemption  in  an  alienated 
world.  We  would  even  rejoice  to  see  her  who  was  first  in  the 
field  at  the  Reformation  in  England,  first,  also,  in  the  field,  when 
the  Son  of  God  shall  come  to  take  to  himself  his  great  power; 
and  whatever  positions  may  be  assigned  to  other  denominations, 
we  have  no  doubt  that  the  Episcopal  Church  is  destined  yet  to 
be,  throughout,  the  warm  friend  of  revivals,  and  to  consecrate 
her  wealth  and  power  to  the  work  of  making  a  perpetual  aggres- 
sion on  the  territories  of  sin  and  of  death. 

Concerning  tho  opinion  of  Cranmer,  given  at  the  foot  of  the 
opposite  page,  Le  Bas  adds,  •'  But  whatever  miglit  be  the  source 
of  the  notions  here  expressed  by  him,  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  he 
did  not  long  retain  this  system  of  opinions." 


ANSWER    TO    A    REVIEW 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE." 


OcR  readers  will  recollect  that  at  various  periods  since  this 
tract  first  appeared,  now  more  than  three  years  ago,  we  have 
reminded  all  concerned  that  it  had  not  been  answered.  At  length, 
however,  a  cliampioii  appears,  to  take  up  the  gauntlet  thrown 
down,  and  do  battle  for — really  we  cannot  say  for  what — 
but  against  the  claims  of  Episcopacy.  He  advances  to  the 
field  wiih  the  courtesy  of  a  perfect  knight,  saying  so  many 
civil  things  of  his  opponent,  that  we  regret  that  the  withholding 
of  his  name  deprives  us  of  the  opportunity  of  being  personally 
courteous  in  return.  This,  however,  we  can  see,  though  his 
armor  is  closed,  and  this  we  say  with  unfeigned  gratification, 
that  he  is  a  gentleman  of  elevated  feelnigs  and  honorable 
principles. 

And  now  to  the  discussion.  The  Reviewer  has  fixed  upon  one 
point  in  the  line  of  argument  in  the  tract,  and  on  it  directed  his 
main  attack.  Our  reply  must,  of  course,  correspond.  First, 
however,  we  offer  some  preliminary  observations. 

Because  tlie  author  of  the  tract*  rested  the  claims  of  Episco- 
pacy finally  on  Scripture — because  he  fills  a  high  office  in  the 
Church — and  because  the  tract  is  issued  by  so  prominent  an 
Episcopal  institulym  as  tlie  "  Press,"  the  Reviewer  seems  to 
tlunk  that  Episcopalians  are  now  to  abandon  all  arguments  not 
drawn  directly  from  the  holy  volume.  Not  at  all.  The  author 
of  the  tract,  in  his  sermon  ai  the  consecration  of  the  four  bishops 
in  October,  1832,  advocated  Episcopacy,  besides  on  other 
'grounds,  on  that  of  there  being  several  grades  of  office  in  ihe 
priesthoods  of  all  religions,  false  as  well  as  true,  and  in  all  civil 
magistracies  and  other  official  structures, — and,  in  his  late  charge, 
he  adverted  to  the  evidence  in  its  favor  contained  in  the  fathers. 
And  the  "Press,"  at  the  time  it  issued  the  tract,  issued  also  with 
it,  in  the  "  Works  on  Episcopacy,"  those  of  Dr.  Bowden  and 
Dr.  Cot)ke,  which  embrace  the  argument  at  large.  There  is  no 
reason,  therefore,  for  thinking  that,  however  a  single  writer 
may  use  selected  arguments  in  a  single  publication,  either  he  or 
other  Episcopalians  will  (or  should)  narrow  the  ground  they 


♦  Bishop  H.  U.  Ondeidonk. 


94  ANSWER  TO   A   REVIEW   OP 

have  usually  occupied.  The  fathers  are  consulted  on  this 
subject,  because  the  fabric  of  the  ministry  which  they  describe 
forms  an  historical  basis  for  interpreting  Scripture.  And  gene- 
ral practice,  in  regard  to  distinct  grades  among  officers,  throws 
a  heavier  burden  of  disproof  on  those  whose  interpretations  are 
adverse  to  Episcopacy  :  tliis  latter  topic  we  shall  again  notice 
before  we  close. 

The  reviewer  thinks  that,  in  discussing  the  exclusive  claims 
of  Episcopacy,  "  the  burden  of  proof  lies  wholly  on  its  friends." 
Bui  the  correctness  of  this  assertion  depends  on  the  sense  in 
which  the  phrase  "  burden  of  proof"  is  taken.  In  a  loose  way, 
it  may  be  said  that  the  burden  of  proof  so  far  lies  on  him  who 
advances  a  proposition,  i.  e.  on  him  who  happens  to  make  the 
first  assertion  in  any  given  discussion,  as  that  he  must  adduce 
arguments  for  his  opponents  to  reply  to;  and  it  is  sometimes 
one  of  the  arts  of  controvertists  to  manoeuvre  upon  this  rule. 
But  the  rule  is  only  technical :  it  may  furtlier  an  orderly  discus- 
sion, but  it  does  nothing  more  toward  the  development  of  truth. 
We  suppose  tlie  reviewer  to  mean  this  sense  of  tiie  phrase,  as 
he  speaks  of  nothing  more  than  tlie  •'  specific  assertion"  of  tiie 
tract;  but,  in  this  sense,  the  tract  fulfilk^d  its  duty  in  giving 
proofs.  Tlie  "  burden  of  proof"  lias,  liowever,  a  meaning  far 
more  important.  It  is  the  opposite  of  the  "  presumptive  argu- 
ment." In  some  cases,  the  presumptive  argument  is  clear,  and 
it  holds  its  ground  till  disproved  ;  and  in  such  a  controversy, 
the  burden  of  proof  is  a  burden  indeed.  In  other  cases,  it  is 
doubtful  on  which  side  tiie  presumptive  argument  lies,  and  then 
it  is  a  waste  of  time  to  talk  about  tlie  burden  of  proof.  Does  the 
reviewer  think  that  the  presumptive  argument  is  clearly  against 
the  exclusive  claiiiis  of  Episcopacy?  Let  him  go  to  Ignatius,  in 
the  age  next  the  apostolic,  and  read  about  the  "  bishop,  pres- 
byters, and  deacons" — he  puts  on  such  language  a  Presbyterian 
construction— while  Episcopalians  put  on  it  theirs;  does  this 
give  him  a  clear  presumption?  Does  it  throw  the  burden  of 
proof  on  us?  Let  him  go  to  the  period  when  the  Reformation 
began — then  all  the  Christian  world  was  Episcopal — he  excepts, 
though  we  do  not,  the  Waldenses ;  does  this  grand  fact  give  a 
presumption  against  Episcopacy?  Let  him,  again,  look  on 
Christendom  now,  and  estimate  the  majority  of  Episcopalians 
as  he  pleases — a  vast  majority  it  is,  by  any  estimate;  does  he 
find  in  such  a  state  of  things  any  clear  consideration  that  throws 
the  burden  of  proof  on  the  exclusive  advocates  of  the  Episcopal 
ministry?  We  judge  not.  We  rather  think  it  would  not  be 
difficult  to  show  that  this  "  burden,"  so  far  as  these  topics  may 
be  allowed  to  decide  it,  lies  upon  the  impugners  of  Episcopac}'. 
Wetherefore  most  respectfully  suggest  to  the  reviewer,  that  it 
probabli/  lies — on  a  minority  in  controversy  with  a. majority,  i.  e. 
on  Non-episcopalians — on  those  who  left  Episcopacy  at  the 
Reformation — on  those  who,  to  make  Ignatius  interpret  the 
Scriptures  relating  to  the  ministry  as  they  do,  adduce,  not  fact 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  95 

or  evidence,  or  even  the  historical  chain  of  proof,  but  merely 
iheir  own  interpretation  of  those  Scriptures,  as  the  key  to 
Ignatius. 
"We  were  much  pleased  to  find  the  reviewer  agreeing,  in  the 
main  at  least,  to  llie  exclusion  of  extraiveoiis  arguments  from 
this  controvers}',  as  proposed  and  largely  insisted  on  in  the 
tract — "  to  most  of  the  observations  under  these  several  heads, 
we  give  our  hearty  assent."  Yet  such  is  human  forgelfulness, 
in  even  the  best  of  men,  that  he  straj's  once  or  oftener  into 
every  one  of  these  extraneous  or  inconclusive  arguments,  as  a 
few  exemplifications,  under  the  heads  given  in  the  tract,  will 
show.  1.  The  notion  that  Episcopacy  is  adverse  to  ci\''\\  free- 
dom^ is  extraneous  and  irrelevant:  does  the  reviewer  "assent" 
to  excluding  this  notion  ?  He  says,  "  If  the  New  Testament  had 
been  the  only  authority  appealed  to  in  other  times.  Episcopacy 
would  long  since  have  ....  sunk  away  with  other  dynasties 
and  dominations,  from  the  notice  of  mankind."  2.  Another 
extraneous  argument  is  the  accusation  that  Episcopalians  are 
not  pious  enough:  does  the  reviewer  "assent"  to  putting  this 
imputation  out  of  view?  He  says  of  Episcopacy,  in  certain 
former  periods,  "Even  as  a  part  of  the  Protestant  religion,  it 
has  brought  'a  numb  and  chill  stupidity  of  sold,  an  inactive 
blindness  of  mind,  upon  tlie  people,  by  its  leaden  doctrine  ;'  we 
cannot  forget  '  the  frozen  captivity'  of  tlie  Church,  '  in  the 
bondage  of  prelates.'"  3.  That  the  external  appointments  of 
Christianity  are  of  inferior  moment,  is,  argues  the  tract,  another 
irrelevant  matter:  does  the  reviewer  "assent"  to  having  tliis 
plea  set  aside?  He  says,  "We  regard  it  as  a  matter  of  very 
little  moment,  in  what  particular  church  the  spirit  is  prepared 
for  its  eternal  rest."  4.  That  some  Episcopalians  unchurch  the 
Non-episcopalian  denominations,  is  an  extraneous  argument: 
does  the  reviewer  "  assent"  to  keeping  it  out  of  the  discussion? 

He  says,  "  Whetlier   their  arguments are  such  as   to 

render  appropriate  the  description  of  all  people  but  the  members 
of  Episcopal  Churches,  as  left  to  '  the  uj: covenanted  mercies  of 
God  ;'  whether  they  are  such  as  to  prompt,  legitimately,  ...  to 
the  modest  use  of  the  term  "  the  Churcli,'  with  an  exclusive 
reference  to  themselves,*  must  now  be  left  to  the  judgment  of 
our  readers."  5.  Referring  to  authorities,  on  either  side,  who 
are  thought  to  h.?L\e  contradicted  themsehes,  is,  according  to  the 
tract,  irrelevant,  extraneous,  and  even  futile:  does  the  reviewer 
"assent?"  He  adduces  the  opinions  of  Cranmer,  concerning 
"the  original  ident';1y  of  bisliops  and  presbyters,"  and  that 
neither  ••  consecr.\iioii,  nor  any  other  solemnity,"  is  essential  to 
make  a  minister  of  Christ;  while  yet  CraiimtT  sanctioned  our 
Ordinal,  which  declares  that  Goo  "appointed  divers  orders  of 
ministers  in  the  Church ;"  and  which  decrees  that  no  man  shall 


♦  Twice,  in  his  second  paragraph,  the  reviewer  uses  the  term  "  tlie  Church," 
with,  apparently,  an  exclusive  reference  to  Presbyterians. 


96  ANSWER    TO   A   REVIEW   OP 

officiate  "in  this  Church,"  without  "Episcopal  consecration  or 
ordination  ;"  contradiciion  enough,  we  apprehend,  to  set  aside 
Cranmer's  anthofity  on  tiiis  point.  6.  The  trad  argued  tliat  a 
scriptural  '■hint  or  intimatiu)i^'  was  enougl;,  in  mailers  of  a 
periuaiient  l^ind,  without  an  eX)  licit  command,  and  tiiat  to  argue 
otherwise  is  inconclusive:  does  the  reviewer  '' assent  "  to  this? 
He  asks  repeatedly  for  "explicit  proof"  of  Episcopacy,  and 
thinks  that  Episcopalians  can  do  nothing  without  it.  'J'iiiis,  in 
regard  lo  all  the  six  arguments  set  aside  in  the  tract,  ihe  excision 
of  whicli  was  "  assented  "  to,  "  mostly  "  indeed,  yet  "  heartily," 
by  the  reviewer,  he  has  been  so  unfortunate  as  to  forget  him- 
self, and  employ  the  mutually  condemned  weapons.  \\  e  do  not 
say  that  he  lias  employed  them  unkindly,  or,  any  but  the  last  of 
the  six,  as  essential  to  his  cause;  all  we  remark  is,  ihai  those 
who  "assent"  to  that  preliminary  portion  of  the  tract  ought  not  to 
use  them  at  all.  These  topics  are  valueless  to  the  sound  reasoner 
— among  the  weaker  brethren,  some  of  them  are  ajjt  to-produce 
irritation. 

Another  preliminary  remark  may  be  offered.  The  reviewer 
lakes  no  side  on  the  question  of  valid  ordination.  Judging  from 
his  very  flattering  notice  of  tlie  Episcopal  Church,  he  may  bean 
Episcopalian  in  principle,  on  the  ground  of  expediency.  Judg- 
ing from  the  periodical  in  which  his  review  appears,  he  niav  be 
a  Congregationalist  in  sentiment,  and  may  regard  lay  orders  as 
good.  Judging  from  his  writing  aiiainst  the  tract,  wiiich  argues 
only  against  a  I'resbylerian  ministry,  "passing  by  the  feeble 
claim  of  lay-ordination,"  he  may  be  a  Presbyterian.  I!ut  he 
makes  no  profession  of  his  opinion  on  this  subject.  He  savs  ; — 
"The  question  after  all  might  be,  whether  it  was  the  design  of 
the  Apostles  to  establish  any  particular  form  of  church  govern- 
ment," including,  of  course,  any  particular  rule  of  ordination — 
and  he  adds,  "  This  question  we  do  not  intend  to  examine  now, 
neither  do  we  design  to  express  any  opinion  on  it."  Now  he 
has  a  right,  if  he  chooses,  in  atiacking  other  opinions,  to  reserve 
his  own  ;  but  it  is  much  the  same  right  ihal  a  rifleman  has  to  fight 
behind  a  tree — it  is  a  lawful  act,  but  not  indicative  of  peculiar 
valor.  In  the  pursuit  of  abstract  truth,  the  sentiments  of  the 
investigators  are  little  to  the  purpose.  But  when  a  quesiion  has 
immediate  reference  to  practical  arrangements,  it  is  strictly  rele- 
vant to  ask  an  objector  to  any  onesystem,  what  system  he  proposes 
as  a  substitute;  because  the  issue,  when  practical,  is  a  complex 
one,  including  not  only  the  questions  raised  upon  the  system 
attacked,  but  those  also  that  may  occur  concerning  the  one 
brought  forward  in  its  place.  To  oppose  one  plan,  and  yet 
name  no  other,  is  not  to  treat  the  matter  praciicaily.  'I'he 
reviewer  says,  "  If  Episcopalians  cannot  make  good  their  claims 
in  reference  to  tiie  bishop,  it  follows  of  course  that  all  ministers 
are  on  an  equality."  True,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  all  called 
ministers  are  such  ;  the  auestion  would  still  be  open  between 
presbyterian  ordination,  laj-ordination,  election  to  the  ministry 


EriSCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  9'^> 

without  ordination  or  laying  on  of  hands,  and  assuming  tii« 
office  without  either  election  or  ordination.  Let  any  one  duly 
concider  the  respective  principles  of  the  tract  and  the  review, 
concerning  good  order  in  tiie  Church — the  one  presents  a  sys- 
tem for  maintaining  it,  the  other  opposes  that  system,  yet  offers 
none  whatever  in  its  place,  it  leaves  the  ministry  open  to  any 
and  every  claimant, — let  any  one,  we  say,  consider  this  differ- 
ence between  the  two  productions,  and  then  determine  wiielher 
the  tract  and  its  system  have  not  been  allowed  to  hold  a 
material  advantage  by  this  indecision  or  this  reserve  of  the 
reviewer. 

While  on  this  point,  we  must  notice  a  contradiction,  or  some- 
thing very  like  one,  into  which  the  reviewer  has  fallen.  In  one 
paragraph,  "  It  would  not  prove  Episcopacy  to  be  of  divine 
origin,  could  its  friends  show  tliat  Presbylerianism  is  unfounded 
in  the  Scriptures;  or  that  Congregationalism  has  no  claims  to 
support ;  or  that  Independency  is  unauthorized  ;  or  even  that 
lay-ordination  is  destitute  of  direct  support" — yet,  in  another 
paragraph,  "  It  is  admitted  on  all  hands,  that  there  is  somewhere 
in  the  Church  a  right  to  ordain."  Now,  a  right  to  ordain  is  a 
divine  right,  be  it  exercised  as  it  may:  if  Scripture  is  so  inter- 
preted as  to  give  that  right  to  laymen,  or  to  presbyters,  or  to 
bishops,  the  right  is  rested  on  Scripture,  whether  its  support  be 
"direct"  or  indirect;  and,  if  sustained  by  Scripture,  it  is  of 
"divine  origin."  The  reviewer  declares  this  right  to  exist 
"  somewhere  in  the  Church."  Yet  he  argues  that  if  all  kinds  of 
ordination  were  overturned  except  the  Episcopal,  it  would  not 
prove  the  latter  to  be  of  "  divine  origin."  In  other  words,  he 
argues  that  all  sorts  of  ordinations  may  be  without  authority, 
and  so  the  right  to  ordain  exists  nowhere,  while  yet  it  does  exist 
somewhere.  If  the  reviewer  denies  this  conclusion  from  his 
premises,  he  must  speak  more  plainly  concerning  "lay-ordina- 
tion," and  say  whether  it  has  "indirect  support"  in  Scripture. 
For  ourselves,  we  think  that  if  there  be  an  ordaining  power 
somewhere,  yet  not  in  either  of  the  other  alleged  places  of 
deposit,  it  must  be  in  the  bishops. 

And  now  we  proceed  to  the  main  objections  to  the  tract,  as 
urged  by  the  reviewer.  These  relate  to  two  points.  1.  The  as- 
sertion,'in  the  tract,  "  That  the  Apostles  ordained,  all  agree." 
2.  The  inference  or  assumption,  in  tlie  tract— after  stating  the 
distinction  between  "  the  apostles  a7id  elders,"  and  after  show- 
ing that  this  distinction  did  not  arise  from  other  causes—"  It 
foUows,  therefore,  or  will  not  at  least  be  questioned,  that  the 
apostles  were  distinguislied  from  the  elders  because  they  wejre 
superior  to  them  in  ministerial  power  and  rights." 

1.  To  the  assertion,  "  That  the  apostles  ordained,  all  agree," 
the  reviewer  objects,  "If  this  means  any  thing  to  the  purpose, 
It  means  that  they  ordained  as  apostles;  or  that  tiiey  were  set 
apart  to  the  apostolic  office  for  the  purpose  of  ordaining."  Fes- 
Una  Icnte,  not  too  fast.  Episcopalians  believe  undoubtedly  that 
9  • 


98  ANSWER   TO   A   REVIEW   OP 

they  ^ordained  "  as  apostles,"  and  that  they  were  "  set  apart 
for  the  purpose  of  ordaining,''  besides  other  purposes.  But 
lieill)er  of  these  points  were  involved  in  that  portion  of  the 
argument  of  the  tract — where  tlie  fact  that  the  apostles 
ordained  was  mentioned  merely  as  a  fact,  without  regard  to 
the  wiiy  or  how.  This  mere  fact  was  assumed,  as  agreed  to  by 
al! ;  yet  it  was  proved  also  from  Scripture,  on  a  subsequent  page. 
Then  followed  tlie  next  proposition  in  the  train,  "  That  eiders 
(presbyters)  did  [ordain],  we  deny" — which  second  proposition 
is  made  good  as  the  tract  proceeds — nor  does  tlie  reviewer  gain- 
say it,  upon  evidence,  though  he  '  thinks'  he  could,  '  if  his  argu- 
ment required  it,  or  if  he  had  room.'  Here,  let  our  reatlers 
recollect,  that  tlie  argument  of  the  tract  is  with  Presbyterians 
only,  not  with  those  who  maintain  lay-orders,  and  liiat  it  was  ol 
course  unnecessary  to  deny  that  laymen  ordained.  'The'facts 
relating  to  Episcopacy  and  parity  were  first  to  be  ascertained,  as 
the  basis  of  the  argument — the  structure  to  be  erected  on  that 
basis  was  a  different  affair.  And  liie  two  great  facts,  that  apos- 
tles ordained,  and  that  presbyters  did  not,  were  so  sufficiently 
ascertained  in  the  tract,  that  the  reviewer  does  not  controvert 
either  of  them,  by  stating  facts  of  a  contradictory  sort.  To  the 
facts  only  should  attention  be  given  in  tlie  first  place,  and  no 
construction  or  reasoning  should  be  intermixed  with  the  develop- 
ment of  them.  If,  after  this  development  of  facts,  it  should  be 
argued  or  denied  that  the  apostles  ordained  "  as  apostles,"  or 
were  set  apart  for  that  "  purpose"  among  others,  very  well — only 
let  the  assertion  or  denial  wait  till  the  foundation  is  laid. 

The  tract,  in  the  portion  of  it  under  consideration,  draws  no 
inference  from  the  two  facts  mentioned,  but  proceeds  to  an 
entirely  different  line  of  argument  to  prove  ministerial  imparity. 
It  quotes  the  expression,  from  the  record  of  the  council  held  at 
Jerusalem,  "  apostles  and  elders,"  and  asserts  that  it  shows  the 
two  sets  of  persons  so  named  to  have  been  as  distinct  from  each 
other,  as  were  the  laity  from  both,  in  the  passage  "  apostles,  and 
elders,  and  brethren" — and  from  the  former,  in  the  passage 
"  apostles  and  brethren" — adding,  "  apostles  were  therefore  one 
class,  and  elders  another  class,  just  as  the  laity  were  a  third 
class."  This  seems  clear  enough,  nor  does  the  reviewer  ques- 
tion it.  The  tract  then  proceeds  to  show,  that  the  apostles  were 
not  thus  distinguished  because  appointed  by  Christ  personally 
— nor  because  they  had  seen  our  Lord  after  his  resurrection — nor 
only  (as  the  tract  further  states,  though  the  reviewer  forgets  that 
it  does  so,)  because  they  were  special  witnesses  of  that  event — 
nor  because  they  worked  miracles — for  sustaining  all  which 
propositions  reasons  are  given.  It  then  draws  the  conclusion, 
that  the  apostles  were  thus  distinguished  from  the  elders  because 
they  vveie  "  superior  to  them  in  ministerial  power  and  rights." 
This  is  the  line  of  argument  which  introduces  the  reasoning 
against  parity.  And  it  brings  us  to  the  second  of  the  main 
objections  to  the  tract,  offered  by  the  reviewer. 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  99 

2.  In  bringing  this  portion  of  the  Episcopal  argument  o  the 
inference  mentioned,  apostolic  pre-eminence,  the  author  of  tlie 
tract  says-^"  It  follows,  therefore,  [from  the  premises  just  enu- 
merated,] or  at  least  will  not  be  questioned,  that  the  apostles 
were  superior  to  the  elders  in  ministerial  power  and  rights." 
Here  are  two  assertions — •'  it  follows" — "  or  it  will  not  be  ques- 
tioned"— either  is  sufficient  for  the  reasoning  of  the  tract. 

Tiie  assertion  ''it  follows,"  means,  of  course,  '  if  the  previous 
statement  holds  good  ;'  and  that  in  this  case  the  inference  is 
just,  the  reviewer  does  not  controvert.  And  it  would  be  difficult 
to  do  so  ;  for,  so  far  as  we  recollect,  every  other  point  in  which 
disiinction  could  even  plausibly  be  claiuied  for  the  apostles,  had 
been  set  aside  by  the  tract,  (as  the  reader  will  see  in  our  para- 
graph next  but  one  above,)  leaving  only  the  one  disiinction  of 
"  ministerial"  superiority.  The  inference,  therefore,  tiiat  this 
was  the  distinciion  implied  in  the  expression  "  apostles  and 
elders,"  is  neither  forced  nor  unreasonable,  it  follows  justly  from 
the  premises  slated.  And  when  it  is  considered  that  the  distinc- 
tion was  made  in  an  ecclesiastical  council,  it  will  be  acknow- 
ledged that  this  ground  for  it  was  the  most  natural  one  that  could 
be  assigned. 

But  it  was  important  to  add,  that  the  ministerial  superiority  of 
the  apostles  "  icould  not  be  qucsliovedy  Yet  here  the  reviewer* 
is  all  astonishment  !  Here  is  a  link  of  straw  in  the  argument  of 
the  tract,  wliatever  be  the  material  of  the  rest  of  the  chain  ! 
"What!  trust  any  portion  of  the  proof  of  Episcopacy  to  an  asser- 
tion that  "  will  not  be  questioned  !"  Even  so  :  the  author  of  the 
tract  has  been  guilty  of  this  most  egregioirs  oversight,  and  he 
must  submit  to  the  due  castigalion.  We  shall  see.  But  first  let 
the  reviewer  speak  for  himself. 

"  He  next  attempts  to  show,  that  this  distinction  [between 
'apostles  a7uL  elders']  was  not  made  because  they  [the  apostles] 
'  were  appointed  by  Christ  personally,'  nor  because  '  they  had 
seen  our  Lord  after  his  resurrection;'  nor  'because  of  their 
power  of  working  miracles:'  and  then  the  writer  adds,  '  It  fol- 
lows, therefope,  or  will  not  at  least  be  questioned,'' — a  qualifica- 
tion which,  by  the  way,  seems  to  look  as  if  the  writer  iiad  him- 
self no  great  confidence  in  the  conseculiveness  of.  the  demon- 
stration,— '  that  the  apostles  were  distinguished  from  the  elders 
because  they  were  supe/ior  to  them  in  ministerial  power  and 
rights.'  This  is  the  argument,  and  this  is  the  whole  of  it.  On 
the  making  out  of  this  point,  depends  the  stupendous  fabric  of 
Episcopacy.  Here  is  the  corner-stone  on  which  rests  the 
claims  of  bishops;  this  the  position  on  which  the  imposing  and 


•  At  this  point  of  our  mnniiscript  we  receive  a  copy  of  tlie  Review,  separate  from 
tli<;  rest  of  llie  p(>riodic:il  in  wliicli  it  ;ip|ipareH,  and  piiiilliMl  "  b',xariiinalion  of 'Epis- 
copacy Tfsted  bv  Sciiptiire.' "  We  oiiiilit  tlierofore,  perhaps,  to  sny  "examiner," 
instead  of  '•  reviewer."  Hut  as  the  latter  word  is  commonly  used  in  such  articles 
M  the  present,  we  retain  it. 


00  ANSWER   TO   A   REVIEW   OP 

mighty  superstructure  has  been  reared.  Our  readers  will  joir 
with  us  in  our  amazement,  that  this  point  has  not  been  made 
out  with  a  clearer  deduction  of  arguments,  than  such  as  were 
fitted  to  lead  to  the  ambiguous  conclusion — '  It  follows,  there- 
fore, or .'  " 

Now,  what  will  be  the  reviewer's  "  amazement,"  when  we 
assure  him  that  "  this  is  the  whole  of  his  argument"  affecting 
the  tract !  Yet  such  is  the  case:  for  the  reasonings,  throughout 
his  article,  are  much  the  same  with  those  usually  brought  against 
Episcopacy ;  and  where  not  the  same,  they  are  so  much  minus 
the  former  ground,  which  the  tract  left  far  behind  in  proceeding 
with  its  inductive  demonstration,  as  we  deem  it,  of  that  form  oi 
the  ministry.  No  one,  for  tiiree  years,  brought  those  old  reason- 
ings against  the  tract — no  one,  till  tlie  reviewer  fancied  he  had 
discovered  a  weak  spot  in  it,  and  niiglit  therefore  reproduce 
some  of  them  with  effect.  Here,  then,  is  the  grand — we  may  say 
the  one  point  of  contest ;  for  if  we  can  make  good  our  cause 
here,  we  may  leave  the  rest  of  the  old  matter  of  the  review,  or 
so  much  of  it  as  we  please,  where  it  has  reposed  for  three  years. 
The  present  is  only  a  start  in  its  slumber. 

"  Amazement !"  Does  tlie  reviewer  deny  the  assertion,  that 
"  it  will  not  be  questioned  that  the  apostles  were  superior  to  the 
elders  in  ministerial  power  and  rights?"  we  should  be  "amazed" 
if  lie  did — ought  we  to  be  "amazed"  that  he  neither  denies  nor 
allows  it?  His  uninitiated  readers,  however,  will  understand 
his  article  as  contradicting  the  tract  on  this  point.  He  says, 
indeed,  with  Non-episcopal  writers  generally,  that  the  apostles 
held  only  an  extraordinary  and  temporary  power  over  other 
ministers;  but  this  is  not  the  point  in  that  portion  of  the  argu-" 
ment  of  tlie  tract;  which  was  only  to  show  the  fact  that  the 
apostles  were  superior  to  them,  leaving  to  subsequent  investiga 
tion  to  decide  whether  this  superiority  was  temporary  or  not 
extraordinary  or  not.  Is  it  not,  then,  a  fact,  that  the  apostles 
were  "superior  to  the  elders  in  ministerial  power  and  rights?' 
was  it  not  fair  to  say,  that  this  assertion  would  "not  be  ques- 
tioned ?"  To  settle  this  matter  we  shall  adduce  Non-episcopal 
authorities,  and  in  sufficient  number,  we  trust,  to  satisfy  our 
readers;  merely  addin?,  that  we  do  not  recollect  any  who 
"question"  it,  unless  they  question  or  deny  also  an  ordained 
ministry — unless  they  are  other  than  Presbyterians  (proper,) 
with  whom  only  the  tract  was  in  controversy. 

In  substantiating  this  assertion  by  the  authorities  we  shall 
quote,  we  apprize  our  readers  that  they  include  "  evangelists" 
with  the  apostles,  and  that  they  regard  the  superior  powers  of 
both  as  extraordinary  and  temporary.  Their  allowing  rights 
over  tlie  clergy  to  evangelists,  shows  that  they  did  not  regard 
those  rights  as  confined  to  the  thirteen  principal  Aposlles — 
which  is  something  for  Episcopacy.  Their  opinion  that  tiiese 
rights  were  extraordinary  and  transient,  has  no  bearing  on  the 
simple ybtcf  that  they  existed.    With  the  Non-episcopal  tone  oi 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  101 

the  language  of  these  writers  we  have,  in  using  them  for  this 
fact,  noihing  to  do. 

The  late  Dr.  Wilson.  "  But  it  so  happens,  that  the  conformity 
in  daiies  between  llie  diocesan  bisliop  and  the  apostle  and 
primitive  evangelist ;  and  the  contrast  of  the  oversight  of  an 
individual  churcli  by  its  presbyters,  with  an  Episcopat^e  in  after 
ages;  are  now  adopted  as  arguments  to  prove,  contrary  to  the 
verily  of  facts,  that  diocesan  bishops  are  actually  the  successors 
in  ojjice  of  the  apostles  and  evangelists,  and  not  of  the  presby- 
ters in  the  churches."  (p.  252.)  That  is,  the  apostles  and  evan- 
gelists held  an  "  otfice"  the  "duties"  of  which  conformed  to 
those  of  diocesan  bishops;  of  course  they  were  superior  to  pres- 
byters in  ministerial  power  and  rigiits.  Again,  speaking  of  the 
office  of  Timothy,  as  an  evanoelist,  "This  office  was  superior 
to  that  of  pastors  even  teachers."  (p.  253.)  Again  ;  "  There  is 
little  more  propriety  in  bringing  the  apostolic  office  down  to  a 
level  witli  that  of  presbyters  or  bishops,  or  of  elevating  the  latter 
to  the  grad"  of  the  former,  than  of  supposing  every  governor  an 
alderman,  or  every  alderman  a  governor  of  a  slate,  because 
commissioned  by  such."  (p.  268.) 

Dr.  Miller.  '•  It  is  evident,  from  the  whole  tenor  of  Scripture, 
that  the  apostolic  character  was  superior  to  that  of  the  evan- 
gelists:  and  Paul,  especially,  always  addresses  Timothy  and 
Titus  in  a  style  of  authority?^  Again,  "  We  hold  that  all  the 
authority  over  other  ministers,  with  which  the  apostles  and 
evangelists  were  vested,  was  extraordinary,  and  necessarily 
arose  from  the  sacred  canon  not  being  yet  complete,  and  the 
Church  not  yet  settled."  (pp.  107,  108,  1st  edit.)  That  is:  the 
elders  were  inferior  to  the  evangelists  in  "  vested"  authority,  and 
these  inferior  to  the  apostles — greatly  superior  then  must  the 
apostles  have  been  to  the  elders  in  "  vested"  authority — so  "  we 
hold,"  says  Dr.  Miller,  we  Presbyterians.  To  this  eminent 
divine,  then,  the  author  of  the  tract  may  transfer  the  responsi- 
bility of  saying:,  that  "  the  ministerial  superiority  of  the  apostles 
will  not  questioned,"  by  that  denomination,  —  their  "vested" 
ujficiul  superiority.* 

Dr.  Campbell.  "  No  doubt  they  [the  apostles]  may  be  styled 
bishops  or  overseers,  but  in  a  sense  very  different  from  that  in 
which  it  is  applied  to  the  inspector  [presbyter-bishop]  over  the 
inhabitants  of  a  particular  district.  They  were  universal  bisliops  ; 
the  whole  Church,  or  rather,  the  whole  earth  was  their  charge, 
and  they  were  all  colleagues  one  of  another."  (p.  77.) 

Matthew  Henry.  "  The  officers  which  Christ  gave  to  his 
Church  were  of  two  sorts ;  "extraordinary  ones,  advanced  to  a 
higlier  office  in  the  Church;  such  were  apostles,  prophets,  and 
evangelists.    The  apostles  were  chief And  then  there 


♦  We  have  somnwhat  amplified  tliis  p.ira^raph  in  llic  reprint  to  give   us  tlia 
benefit  of  Dr.  M-llcr's  name  agaliLst  the  Biblical  KeiJCilory  lor  April,  1835. 

9* 


102  ANSWER   TO   A  REVIEW   OP 

are  ordinary  ministers,  employed  in  a  lower  or  narrower  sphere, 
as  pastors  and  teaciiers."  (On  Epli.  iv.  11.) 

The  Divines  icho  argued  with  Charles  /.,  iii  the  Isle  of  Wight. 
"  Tiiose  that  would  carry  it  (Episcopacy)  higher,  endeavored  to 

imp  it  into  the  apostolical  office and  so  the  apostolical 

office,  (excepting  the  gifts,  or  enablements  confessed  only  extra- 
ordinary) is  brought  down  to  be  Episcopal,  and  the  Episcopal 
raised  up  to  be  aposlolical.  Whereupon  it  follows  that  the 
highest  officers  in  the  Chnrch  are  pnt  into  a  lower  orb;  an 
extraordinary  office  turned  into  an  ordniary  distinct  office,  con- 
foinided  with  tiiat  which  in  the  Scripture  is  not  found,  a  tempo- 
rary and  an  exlnict  office  rfvived."  (p.  6.)  In  other  words,  those 
divines  allow  the  official,  i.  e.  the  "ministerial"  siiperioiity  of 
the  apostles  over  presl>yters  to  have  been  even  greater  than  that 
claimed  by  bisliops — but  this  latter  claim  they  reject. 

Calvin.  "So  those  twelve  individuals,  whom  the  Lord  chose 
to  promulgate  the  first  proclamatiitn  of  liis  Gospel  to  the  world, 
preceded  all  other  in  order  and  dignity."  Again  ;  "  By  '  evan- 
gelists' 1  luiderstand  those  who  were  inferior  to  the  apostles  in 
dignity,  but  next  to  them  in  office,  and  who  performed  similar 
functi(uis."     (Inst.  b.  4,  c.  3,  s,  4,  5.) 

1'iius,  from  Calvin  downward,  it  is  proved  to  he  the  belie!  of 
Preshyierians,  as  is  asserted  in  the  tract,  thai  "  the  apostles  were 
dislinguislied  from  the  elders  because  they  were  superior  to 
them  in  ministerial  power  and  rights."  No  Presbyterian,  in  the 
proper  sense  of  the  appcllalioii,  "(jneslious"  it — none  tiiat  we 
know  of — thougii  some,  into  whom  we  liave  just  loolied,  are  not 
explicit  on  this  particular  point.  As  to  this  superiority  having 
been  part  of  the  extraordinary  prerogative  of  the  thirteen  Apos- 
tles, we  refer  to  die  tract  itself,  where  it  is  shown  tiiat  the  pre- 
eminence of  certain  officers  in  the  Church  over  elders  is  recog- 
nised in  oilier  individuals,  and  as  perpetual.  We  may  add  a 
word  or  two,  on  this  point,  as  we  proceed. 

Sti  far,  then,  the  tract  is  safe:  nay,  those  who  are  versed  in 
the  Episcopal  controversy  will  think  this  part  oi  our  labor 
supererogatory;  but  many,  we  are  sorry  to  say,  know  little  of 
the  argumeni  concerning  tliis  branch  of  the  institutions  of  our 
Lord — and  these  may  learn  that  there  was  no  cause  for  the 
"  amazement"  of  the  reviewer. 

We  have  iu)w  further  to  remark,  that  the  reviewer  says  that 
the  passacre  we  quoted  from  him  contains  the  "whole"  argu- 
ment of  the  tract  on  the  point  just  discussed.  This  is  an  over- 
sight. The  tract,  at  this  very  point,  referred  to  a  previous  note, 
which  reads  thus: — 

"  That  the  Apostles  alone  ordained  will  be  proved.  In  1  Cor. 
iv,  19-21;  v.  3-5;  2  Cor.  ii.  0;  vii.  12;  x.  8;  xiii.  2,  10;  and 
1  Tim.  i.  20,  are  recorded  infliclions  and  reuiissious  o[  discipline 
performed  by  an  Apostle,  or  threateuings  on  his  part,  allhougli 
there  must  have  been  elders  in  Corintli,  and  certainly  were  in 
Ephesus."    (Tract,  p.  12.) 


EnSCOPACY   TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE.  103 

This  note,  as  referring  to  several  passages  of  Scripture,  should 
be  considered  as  part  of  llie  arjjument  of  wliicli  the  reviewer 
iiradvertenlly  says,  he  gives  •' llie  wlioie  of  it"— the  argument, 
in  tlie  tract,  for  the  ministerial  superiority  of  apostles  over 
elders.  Lei  us  examine  this  note  in  detail,  and  see  how  much 
proof  to  this  effect  it  condenses  in  a  few  lines.' 

There  must  have  been  elders  in  Corinth  when  the  epistles 
were  written  to  them.  We  prove  this  by  the  language  of  Paul 
— "  As  a  wise  master  builder  I  have  laid  the  foundation,  and 
aiv.t/ier  buildelh  thereon."  We  prove  it  by  the  language,  hyper- 
bolical indeed  in  the  number,  yet  decisive  of  the  fact — "Though 
ye  have  ten  thousand  instructers  in  Christ."  We  prove  it  by 
tiie  language,  i;i  reference  to  the  right  of  the  clergy  to  be  main- 
tained t)y  iheir  flocks — "If  others  be  partakers  of  this  power 
over  you,  are  not  we  rallier?"  We  prove  it  by  the  fact  that 
the  "Lord's  Supper"  was  celebrated  in  that  church,  which 
required  an  elder,  at  the  least.  We  prove  it  by  the  language, 
roucerning  some  of  the  Corinthian  teachers — "Are  they  minis- 
ters o/" Christ I  am  more."     Not  only  then  do  we  say, 

with  the  author  of  the  tract,  "  there  must  have  been  elders  in 
Corinth,"  but  we  assert  it  positively,  there  were,  at  the  time  Paul 
wrote  the  two  epistles  to  tiiat  church. 

Yet,  without  noticing  these  elders  in  the  matter,  so  far  as  the 
epistles  sliow,  though  they  doubtless  were  noticed  and  considted 
as  much  as  courtesy  and  their  pastoral  standing  made  proper — 
without  putting  the  matter  into  their  hands,  or  even  passing  it 
tlir^ugh  their  hands,  Paul  threatens,  inflicts,  and  remits  disn- 
f)line  ~among  the  people  of  their  ciiarge.  This  is  a  "  ministerial  " 
act.  And  Paul's  doing  it  himself,  instead  of  committing  il  to 
the  elders,  shows  that  he,  an  apostle,  was  ^^  superior  to  them  in 
ministerial  power  and  rights."  This  conclusion  is  unavoidable, 
if  the  fact  be  sustained.  Let  us  then  look  to  the  fact — our  readers, 
we  trust,  will  accompany  us  patiently. 

"  But  /  will  come  to  you  shortly,  if  the  Lord  will,  and  will 
Ivuow,  not  the  speech  of  them  which  are  puflFed  up,  but  the 
power. 

For  the  kingdom,  of  God  is  not  in  word,  but  in  power. 

What  will  ye?  shall  /come  to  you  with  a  rod,  or  in  love,  and 
in  the  spirit  of  meekness?"  (1  Cor.  iv.  19-21.) 

Here  is  "  power"  and  "  a  rod,"  to  be  exercised  under  God's 
"  kingdom  "  or  sovereignty,  and  by  one  man,  an  apostle,  if  those 
who  were  "puffed  up"  did  not  humble  themselves.  Here  is 
church  discipline  threatened,  not  by  or  through  the  elders,  but 
b}"^  an  apostle  individually,  and  with  the  rod  in  his  hands. 

"  For  /  verily,  as  absent  in  body  but  present  in  s[)irit,  have 
judged  (in  the  margin  determined)  already,  as  though  I  were 
present,  concerning  him  that  hath  so  done  this  deed. 

In  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  when  ye  are  gathered 
together,  and  my  spirit,  with  the  power  of  our  Lord  Jesds 
Christ, 


104  ANSWER   TO  A  REVIEW   0*< 

To  deliver  such  a  one  unto  Satan  for  the  deslruction  of  the 
flesh,  that  the  spirit  may  be  saved  in  the  day  of  the  Lord  Jesus." 
(ICor.  V.  3-5.) 

Here  is  an  act  of  church  discipline,  nothing  less  than  excom- 
munication ;  and  wlio  inflicts  it?  tlie  elders  at  Corintli  1  By  no 
means.  Paul  does  it.  Tlie  Apostle  "judges"  and  determines 
to  "deliver  to  Satan"  the  unworthy  Christian — and  to  do  il 
when  that  church,  and  "his  spirit"  were  assembled  together, 
himself  being  in  that  sense  present  when  his  sentence  was  exe- 
cuted. Who  read  his  sentence  in  the  assembly,  we  are  not 
informed;  probably  one  of  the  elders.  Who  ejected  the  man 
personally,  if  that  mode  of  executing  the  sentence  was  added  to 
the  reading  of  it,  we  are  not  told.  It  is  enough  that  the  "judg- 
ment," the  decision,  the  authority  for  the  discipline,  was  that  of 
an  apostle  alone,  and  evinced  his  superiority,  in  ministerial 
functions,  to  the  elders  of  that  church.  The  excommunication 
led,  of  course,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  man  from  the  friendship 
and  kind  offices  of  the  brethren  ;  and  this  is  called  his  "  punish- 
ment inflicted  of  many,"  in  the  passage  we  are  next  to  quote. 

"  Sufficient  to  such  a  man  is  this  punishment,  which  was 
inflicted  of  many. 

To  whom  ye  forgive  any  thing,  /forgive  also  ;  for  if /forgave 
any  thing,  to  whom  /  forgave  it,  for  your  sakes  forgave  lit  in 
the  person  o/"  Christ."  (2  Cor.  ii.  6,  10.) 

Here  is  a  remission  of  discipline,  not  by  the  elders,  but  by  an 
apnstle  ;  he  pronounces  the  punishment  to  be  "  sufficient."  The 
brethren  forgive  the  scandal  of  the  man's  conduct,  he  having 
become  penitent;  and  Paul  forgives  him,  by  removing  the  sen- 
tence. They  forgave  as  men  and  fellow  Christians — he  forgave 
"  in  the  person  of  Christ." 

With  such  illustrations  of  an  apostle's  power  to  threaten  dis- 
cipline, to  inflict  discipline,  and  to  remit  discipline,  we  shall 
understand  the  force  of  the  other  passages  in  the  epistles  to  the 
Corinthians,  referred  to  in  the  note  we  have  quoted  from  the 
tract. 

"Wherefore,  though  I  wrote  unto  you,  I  did  it  not  for  his 
cause  that  had  done  the  wrong,  nor  for  his  cause  that  suflxired 
wrong,  but  that  our  care  for  you  in  the  sight  of  God  might  appear 
unto  you."  (2  Cor.  vii.  12.) 

"But  though  I  should  boast  somewhat  more  o^  our  authority, 
(which  the  Lord  hath  given  us  for  edification,  and  not  for  your 
destruction,)  I  should  not  be  ashamed."  (2  Cor.  x.  8.) 

"I  told  you  before,  and  foretell  you,  as  if  I  were  present  the 
second  time  ;  and  being  absent,  now  I  write  to  them  which  here- 
tofore have  sinned,  and  to  all  other,  that  if  I  come  again  /  will 
not  spare." 

"  Therefore  I  write  these  things  being  absent,  lest  being  present 
/should  use  sharpness,  according  to  i\\e  power  \\\\\c\\  the  Lord 
hath  given  me  to  edification,  and  not  to  destruction."  (2  Cor. 
xiii.  2]  10.) 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  105 

So  much  for  the  Corintliian  church  an*  its  elders.  The 
reviewer  was  certainly  mistaken  when  he  said  he  iiad  given 
"  the  argument"  of  the  tract,  "  the  wliole  of  it,"  for  the  assertion 
that ''the  aposiles  were  distinguished  from  ilie  eiders  because 
they  were  sitperior  to  llieni  in  ministerial  power  and  rights." 
He  gave  but  a  fraction  of  it. 

Now  turn  we  to  the  further  proof  of  that  assertion,  alluded  to 
in  tlie  tract,  in  the  case  of  the  church  at  Ephesus.  There  "  cer- 
tainly were"  elders  in  Ephesus,  when  Paul  wrote  the  first  epistle 
to  Timothy.  We  prove  tliis  fact  from  tlie  language,  "  That  thou 
mightest  charge  some  that  they  teach  no  other  doctrine:" 
teachers  then  there  were  in  that  church,  public  teachers,  author- 
ized teachers,  and  such  are  not  the  ruling  elders  or  deacons  of 
])arily,  nor,  (except  under  the  bishop's  license,)  the  deacons  of 
Episcopacy  ;  therefore  both  these  parties,  the  only  ones  con- 
cerned with  the  tract,  must  agree  that  they  "  certainly  "  were 
elders  or  presbyters.  We  prove  it  by  tlie  Apostle's  condemna- 
tion of  Hymeneus  and  Alexander,  for  "  making  shipwreck  con- 
cerning faith,"  i.  e.  making  shipwreck  in  teaching  the  faith, 
teaching  it  publicly  and  with  authority — and  these  teachers 
were  elders,  for  the  reasons  just  given.  We  prove  it  also  from 
the  fact  that  there  were  elders  at  Ephesus,  when  Paul  said  to 
them,  in  Acts  xx.,  "  Grievous  wolves  shall  enter  in  among  you 
.  .  .  also  of  your  own  selves  shall  men  arise,  speaking  perverse 
things;"  Paul  tlius  declaring  that  the  false  teaching  at  Epiiesus 
wouTd  be  by  elders,  and  would  occur  afterward,  it  not  having 
occurred  as  yet:  that  the  false  teaching  would  be  by  elders, 
seems  decisive  in  favor  of  the  assertion  that  the  false  leaching 
there  was  by  elders,  as  we  have  just  maintained:  that  the  false 
teaching  was  yet  to  occur,  when  there  were  already  elders  in 
Ephesus  addressed  by  Paul,  in  Acts  xx.,  is  proof  that  that  church 
had  its  elders  when  this  evil  indoctrination  had  occurred,  which 
was  the  case  when  Paul  first  wrote  to  Timothy,  as  our  extracts 
from  that  epistle  show.  This  latter  argument  we  consider  final : 
the  epistle  enumerates,  as  errors  then  existing  there,  "fables, 
endless  genealogies,  swerving  from  charity  and  faith  to  vain 
jai)gling,''quesiions  and  strifes  of  words,  perverse  disputings  of 
men  of  corrupt  minds  and  destitute  of  the  truth,  profane  and 
vain  babblings,  and  oppositions  of  science  falsely  so  called;" 
yvwffcu;,  pf^haps  gnosticisui,  as  Hammond  argues.  This  was  the 
state  of  things  at  Ephesus,  when  Paul  wrote  the  epistle.  But 
when  he  addressed  the  "  elders,"  in  Acts  xx.,  he  spoke  of 
nothing  of  the  sort  as  having  existed,  or  as  existing  tlien,  but 
only  as  to  exist  at  a  future  time.  If  then  tliere  were  elders  there 
brfore  these  miscliiefs  appeared,  there  "certainly  were"  when 
tliey  were  afterward  developed — i.  e.  when  Paul  wrote  the  first 
epistle  to  Timothy. 

Well  then  —  is  the  discipline  of  the  clinrch  at  Ephesus 
intrusted  tothe.se  elders?  Nothing  like  it.  As  in  the  case  of 
the  Corinthians,  that  "  power  was  given  by   the  Lord  "  to  an 


106  ANSWER   TO    A    REVIEW    OP 

apostle,  and  only  an  apostle  exercised  it.  Read  the  proof  of 
this  fact. 

"Of  whom  is  Hymeneus  and  Alexander;  whom  /  have 
delivered  imto  Satan,  that  they  may  learn  not  to  blaspheme." 
(1  Tim.  i.  20.) 

It  is  the  apostle  that  inflicts  the  discipline;  the  elders  do  not 
appear  in  tlie  matter.  And  discipline  is  a  "  ministerial "  function  ; 
and  excommunication  its  higliest  exercise. 

Again,  therefore,  we  repeat,  that  this  part  of  the  tract  must 
have  escaped  the  reviewer's  notice,  when  he  declared  that  he 
had  given  its  "  whole  argument"  for  the  "  ministerial  superior- 
ity" of  the  apostles.  ,  Perhaps  it  would  have  been  better  had 
the  author  of  the  tract  expanded  his  note,  so  as  to  have 
presented  the  argument  more  at  length,  or  have  given  it  in 
a  larger  form  in  tlie  appendix.  But  the  note,  as  it  stands, 
adverts  to  every  point  that  here  occupies  three  or  more  of  our 
pages. 

As  to  the  plea  that  the  apostles  exercised  these  rights  and 
powers  as  extraordinary  officers,  not  to  be  continued  in  the 
Church,  we  remark,  in  the  first  place,  that  it  is  an  admission 
that  they  had.  these  rights  and  powers.  It  is  the  usual  plea  of 
Non-episcopal  writers,  as  we  have  shown,  and  having  brought 
tliis  fact  to  the  recollection  of  the  reviewer,  he  will  be  "  amazed  " 
at  himself  we  think,  for  having  been  "  amazed"  at  the  assertion 
of  the  tract,  that  it  "  would  not  be  questioned."  But,  in  the  next 
place,  the  plea  is  not  a  sound  one,  for  these  powers  and  rights 
passed  beyond  the  thirteen  Apostles  to  other  men,  as  Barnabas, 
Timothy,  Titus,  and  the  angels  of  the  seven  Asian  churches ; 
see  the  tract.  Not  so  fast,  says  parity;  these,  or  some  of  them, 
were  "  evangelists,"  and  they  also  were  extraordinary  and  tem- 
porary officers ;  to  which  we  reply,  that  Timothy  alone  is  called 
an  evangelist  in  Scripture,  the  rest  are  not.  Perhaps,  however, 
the  reviewer  thinks,  and  if  so,  we  agree  with  him,  that  the  tract 
lias  routed  the  plea  commonly  rested  by  Non-episcopalians  on 
the  title  "evangelist,"  as  he  does  not  name  the  word,  iiut  merely 
says  that  Timothy  and  Titus  had  a  "temporary"  function  in 
regulating  churches  and  ministers.  This  was  certainly  prudent 
in  him,  for  the  postscript  to  the  tract  has  fairly  given  that  plea 
to  the  winds.  But  let  the  rej'iewer  examine  where  his  neio 
position  leaves  him.  Thus, — Timothy  and  Titus  have  but  tem- 
porary duties,  not  because  they  are  evangelists,  but  because  they 
do  not  remain  permanently  in  one  station,  call  it  a  diocese,  or 
any  thing  else — we  ask,  then,  do  elders,  or  did  they,  remain 
permanently  in  one  station,  call  it  a  parish,  a  congregation,  a 
church,  or  what  you  please?  if  not,  then  elders  also,  by  tlie 
same  argument,  exercised  only  a  temporary  function,  and  so  we 
have  110  ministry  left.  Take  Apollos,  for  example  ;  was  he  not 
an  elder,  at  the  least?  is  he  not  called  a  "  minister"  by  Paul, 
and  did  he  not  "  water"  at  Corinth  what  Paul  had  planted  ?  if 
the  reviewer  says  he  was  more  than  an  elder,  he  contradicts  the 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  107 

parity  he  would  defend,  for  he  then  makes  two  orders  in  the 
ministry  ;  if  he  calls  him  an  evangelist,  he  retreats  from  his  new 
position,  o{  not  adducing  that  title,  and  so  falls  under  the  demo- 
lishing power  of  the  postscript  to  the  Jract.  Well,  then,  does 
Apollos,  an  elder  at  the  least,  remain  stationary  at  Corinth,  or  in 
any  other  parish,  church,  or  congreoation 7  No:  he  had  left 
Corinth  when  Paul  wrote  the  first  epistle  to  the  ciiurch  there; 
he  had  gone  elsewhere  ;  yet  not  even  then  to  be  stationary,  for 
Paul  desired  to  bring  him  back  to  Corinth,  and  he  himself  meant 
to  come  back.  "  when  he  should  have  convenient  time."  (1  Cor. 
xvi.  12.)  Here  are  three  successive  points  occupied  in  the 
ministry  of  [elder]  Apollos,  down  to  the  year  59.  The  next  we 
read  of  him  is  in  the  year  65,  when  he  was  on  a  "journey  "  or 
voyage,  from  some  place  not  mentioned,  to  Crete,  and  was  to 
proceed  on  from  Crete  to  (probably)  Nicopolis.*  Similar 
migrations  could  be  traced  in  the  ministry  of  various  other  per- 
sons named  in  the  Acts  and  the  Epistles;  as  Erastus,  Tychicus, 
Trophimus,  Crescens,  Sopaler,  »&c.,  «Stc, ;  and,  provided,  the 
reviewer  will  allow  that  they  were  elders  at  the  least,  which 
"  will  scarcely  be  questioned,"  we  suppose,  of  the  most  of  them, 
and  will  not  put  in  the  plea  that  they  were  evangelists,  which  is 
precluded  by  his  new  position,  then  there  will  be  so  many  more 
cases  in  proof,  that  elders  were  as  little  fixed  in  one  station  as 
were  Timothy  and  Titus.  At  all  events,  we  have  the  case  of 
Apollos  to  this  effect.  And  the  result  is  this  alternative — if 
Timothy  and  Titus  had  only  temporary  superior  functions, 
because  they  exercised  them  in  more  than  one  place,  the  elders 
had  only  a  temporary  function  for  the  same  reason ;  and  then 
we  have  no  ministry  left :  if,  however,  the  functions  of  the  elders 
were  permanent,  though  they  moved  from  place  to  place,  the 
superior  functions  of  Timothy  and  Titus  were  also  permanent, 
in  spite  of  this  same  objection  ;  and  thus  we  have  Episcopacy  a 
permanent  institution  in  the  Church. 

Our  deepest  thanks,  therefore,  are  due  to  the  reviewer,  for 
co-operating  with  the  tract  in  brushing  away  this  rubbish  of  the 
parity  argument — that  portion  of  it  which  is  made  out  of  the 
name  evangelist — and  resting  the  discussion  on  the  mere  facts  of 
the  case.  This  is,  indeed,  a  happy  agreement — a  real  advance 
toward  settling  the  controversy  between  Episcopalians  and 
Presbyterians;  for  tlie  latter  will  scarcely  take  the  ground  of  «o 
ministry  ;  and,  if  they  do  not,  the  only  alternative  is  Episco- 
pacy, as  we  have  just  seen.  Let  any  candid  Presbyterian 
renounce  the  evasion  of  cSlling  Timothy  and  Tilns  evangelists, 
and  he  will  have  a  straight-forward  and  uninciimbercid  argu- 
ment. The  apostles  were  "  superior  to  the  elders  in  ministerial 
I)ower  and  rights."  Timothy  and  Titus  were  also  superior  to 
the  elders  in  those  respects.      The  "angel"  of  the  church  at 


*  Titus  iii.  12,  13.     Tlie  reviewer  has  peculiar  iileas  of  tiic  tiine  of  Paul's  visit 
to  NicopejiiB,  wlicn  he  connects  this  passage  with  Gal.  ii.  1. 


108  ANSWER  TO  A  REVIEW   OF 

Ephesus,  where  there  had  long  been  elders,  was  superior  to 
them  ;  for  he  alone  is  addressed  as  "  trying"  false  apostles,  tnd 
the  cluirch  there  is  called  his  "candlestick,"  not  theirs:  a:nd 
this  case  brings  the  "superior"  office  down  to  the  year  i)6. 
Further,  tlie  other  six  "angels"  must  have  resembled  the  (Mie 
at  Ephesus.  Nor  is  there  a  particle  of  scriptural  evidence  that 
this  "superior"  office  was  to  cease  ;  not  a  particle,  though  those 
who  filled  it  may  not  then  have  been  fixed  in  one  station  or  dio- 
cese ;  as  also  there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  that  the  office  of 
the  elders  was  to  cease,  though  they  too  were  not  always  fixed 
in  one  station  or  parish.  Nay,  the  fact  that  inspired  epistles 
were  written  to  Timothy,  Titus,  and  the  seven  "  angels,"  and 
made  part  of  the  New  Testament,  for  permanent  use  in  the 
Church — epistles  which  recognise  the  rigtit  to  ordain  and  inflict 
discipline  on  both  clergy  and  laity,  as  existing  in  the  "  superior" 
officers,  but  do  not  recognise  this  right  in  the  elders — this  fact 
alone  proves  the  "  superior"  office,  i.  e.  Episcopacy,  to  have 
been  intended  for  permanency.  Add  to  this,  that  Timothy  was 
to  "keep  this  commandment  [the  'charge'  given  him  as  a 
'superior'  officer  in  the  church]  till  the  appearing  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  ; "  which  implies  that  there  were  to  be  such  officers 
as  Timothy,  to  keep  tlie  same  "  charge,"  till  Christ  should 
appear — till  the  end  of  the  world.  Let  any  candid  Presbyterian 
examine  this  train  of  proof,  particularly  as  stated  more  fully  in 
the  tract,  leaving  out  of  the  question,  as  the  reviewer  does  most 
creditably,  the  evasion  concerning  "  evangelists,"  and  he  will 
wish,  at  least,  to  be  an  Episcopalian. 

We  have  finished  the  main  discussion  we  proposed.  We  have 
defended,  and  we  hope  to  purpose,  the  portion  of  the  tract 
chiefly  assailed  by  the  reviewer.  We  have  shown  that  the  only 
link  supposed  to  be  weak,  the  grand  link,  "the  point,  on  the 
making  out  of  which  depends  the  stupendous  fabric  of  Episco- 
pacy," the  "  corner-stone,  on  wliich  rest  the  claims  of  bishops;" 
we  have  shown  that  this  now  very  distinguished  link  in  the 
chain  of  the  tract's  inductive  proof  of  Episcopacy,  is  firm  as 
steel.  This  done,  all  the  work  incumbent  on  us  is  performed. 
There  is  no  more  necessity  for  coping  with  the  common  and 
diffusive  arguments  against  us,  which  may  appear  subsequently 
to  the  tract,  than  there  was  for  it  to  notice  all  arguments  of  this 
kind  that  had  appeared  before.  No  one,  we  believe,  has  blamed 
the  tract  for  pushing  on  its  train  of  inductive  reasoning,  without 
regarding  these  interminable  discussions  ;  and  no  one  can  blame 
us,  if  we  now  say  to  the  reaoer,  "Goto  the  tract  itself,  read  it 
carefully  and  with  impartiality,  and  then  decide,  before  God 
and  your  own  conscience,  whether  it  does  not  prove  Episcopacy 
from  Scripture,"  He  who  will  do  it  this  justice,  will  want  no 
other  arguments  for  that  ministry,  and  will  fear  none  against  it. 
Our  duly  therefore  is  sufficiently  discharged. 

But  rather  than  be  uncivil  to  one  whom  we  suspect  to  be  a 
new  comer  into  this  field  of  controversy,  we  will  extend  our 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  109 

ifrticle,  and  notice  some  of  liis  other  remarks,  more  especially 
those  ill  u'liich  he  has  somewhat  of  novelty,  or  differs  from  the 
most  uf  his  predecessors. 

He  says  tliat  the  apostles  were  ordained,  as  such,  early  in  our 
Lord's  ministry.  He  regards  the  words  addressed  to  them,  after 
the  resiirrection,  as  recorded  by  Mattiiew,  Marlv,  and  Luke,  "  Go 
ye  into  all  the  world,"  vStc,  as  but  "  instructions,"  not  as  per- 
taining to  a  fresh  ordination  to  a  higher  office.  But  he  omits 
entirefy  the  record  of  John,  relating  to  that  subsequent  period. 
"  As  niv  Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you  ....  receive 
ye  the' Holy  Ghost:  whose  soever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are 
remitted  unto  them,  and  whose  soever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are 
retained."  This  looks  very  like  the  substance  of  an  ordination 
—the  eleven  are  "  sent ; "  they  receive  the  "  Holy  Ghost,"  in  the 
ecclesiastical  sense,  we  presume,  just  as  the  elders  of  Ephesus 
were  "  made  overseers  [presbyter-bishops]  by  the  Holy  Ghost  ;" 
and  they  are  told  that  they  have  the  power  of  absolving  true 
penitents,  the  nature  of  which  power  in  the  clergy  is  foreign  to 
our  present  discussion.  Are  we  not  right  in  thinking  that  an 
ordination  is  here  ?  Would  the  reviewer,  having  asserted  the 
previous  ordination  of  the  apostles,  would  he,  or  would  he  not, 
if  this  passage  had  occurred  to  him,  have  seen  a  second  ordina- 
tion in  it?  If  he  iiad,  he  would  have  seen  that  which  is 
fatal  to  the  rule  of  parity,  that  there  is  but  one  order  in  the 
ministry. 

The  reviewer  asks  for  explicit  proof  that  Paul  or  the  twelve 
■were  invested  with  superiority  of  office;  we  might  ask  him,  in 
return,  for  explicit  proof  of  their  investment  with  the  power  of 
ordaining.  He  infers  their  right  to  ordain  from  the  facts  of 
Scripture,  and  we  also  infer  their  superiority  of  office  from  the 
same  kind  of  evidence.  Both  inferences  are  unavoidable,  [The 
r/g-Ai  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  individually,  to  ordain,  is  recorded  ; 
that  they  did  ordain  is  therefore  justly  presumed.] 

The  reviewer,  in  order  to  show  what  he  thinks  was  the  point 
in  which  the  apostles  excelled  the  elders  in  the  matter  in  ques- 
tion, dwells  largely  on  the  fact  that  they  were  special  witnesses 
of  our  Lord's  resurrection  ;  and  with  the  help  of  Capital  and 
Italic  letters,  he  has  certainly  made  a  showy  argument.  But 
nobody  denies  that  they  were  the  special  witnesses,  or  that  they 
were  thus  distinguished  from  the  elders,  as  well  as  from  others 
called  apostles  ;  the  tract  gave  due  attention  to  both  these  parti- 
culars. The  point  is,  was  this  distinction  the  one  that  led  to  the 
expression  "  apostles  and  elders?"  Surely  not.  Among  those 
apostles  was  Barnabas,  and  perhaps  Silas,  (Acts  xiv.  14  ;  xv.  2, 
4,  22  ;  1  Thess.  i.  1  ;  ii.  6,)  neither  of  whom  was  a  special  wit- 
ness of  the  resurrection.  Besides:  the  expressions,  "apostles 
and  elders,"  "  apostles,  and  elders,  and  brethren,"  are  used  with 
immediate  reference  to  the  council  at  Jerusalem,  and  the  reviewer 
is  more  acute  than  we  pretend  to  be,  if  lie  can  say  why,  in  a 
council  acting  on  questions  concerningr  ''  idols,  blood,  things 
10 


110  ANSWER   TO   A   REVIEW   OP 

Strangled,  and  licentiousness,"  the  special  witnesses  of  the  resur- 
rection should,  as  such,  have  peculiar  authority.  We  really 
think  the  tract  argues  with  more  consistency,  when  it  says  that 
the  apostles  were  miiiisteriaUi/  above  the  elders.  [For  the"  pro- 
bability" that  there  was  a  third  James,  see  Hammond.] 

On  the  point  of  the  Apostleship  of  Timothy,  the  reviewer 
thinks  he  was  7iot  included  in  the  expression,  "  IVe  ....  the 
apostles  of  Christ,"  in  1  Thess.  ii.,  which  epistle  begins,  "Paul, 
and  Silvanus,  [Silas,]  and  Timotheus,  unto  the  church  of  the 
Thessalonians" — Why? — Because  it  is  said  just  before,  "  We 
had  suffered,  and  were  shamefully  entreated  at  Philippi,"  and 
Tunothy,  he  asserts,  was  not  at  Philippi  at  the  time  these 
severities  were  endured.  Now,  we  argue  these  passages  the 
other  way;  we  think  \]\ey^  of  themselves,  prove  that  Timothy 
was  at  Philippi,  and  "suffered,  and  was  shamefully  entreated," 
though  he  was  not  beaten  and  put  in  prison,  as  Paul  and  Silas 
were.  We  turn  also  to  the  history  in  the  Acts,  (xvi.,  xvii.,) 
where  we  find  that  before  going  to  Philippi,  "  Paul  would  have 
Timothy  to  go  forth  with  him;''  and  after  leaving  Philippi, 
Timothy  was  tcith  him  at  Berea,  without  a  word  or  a  hint  that 
he  had  left  Paul,  or  returned  to  him  in  the  meantime.  The  evi- 
dence is  all  on  our  side,  and  connecting  that  in  the  epistle  with 
that  in  the  Acts,  it  is  conclusive. 

The  reviewer  says,  "  We  would  respectfully  ask  the  author  of 
this  tract,  where  he  finds  an  intimation  of  the  existence  of  an 
order  of  '  clergy  at  large'  in  these  churches,"  the  seven  churches 
in  Asia.  We  "  respectfully  "  answer,  that  he  has  not  said  one 
word  of  "  an  order  of  clergy  at  large,"  but  has  only  spoken  of 
the  "clergy  at  large"  in  those  churches,  an  expression  which 
we  are  "amazed"  to  see  misunderstood.  His  remark  is — "  Ob- 
serve the  emphatic  use  of  the  singular  number  in  the  address  to 
each  of  the  angels  ;  '  I  know  thy  works,'  is  the  clear  and  strong 
language  directed  to  them  all  successively,  implying  the  respon- 
sibility, not  of  a  church  at  large,  or  of  its  clergy  at  large,  but  of 
the  head  or  governor  individually."  The  reviewer  is  first,  we 
believe,  in  imagining  an  ^'^  order  of  clergy  at  large,"  though  he 
does  not  believe  in  his  own  imagination.  And  now,  we  would 
"  respectfully  ask  "  in  return,  Why  does  the  reviewer  "  lay  oxit 
of  view  the  case  of  the  '  elders  at  Ephesus,'  "  when  considering 
the  case  of  the  "angel"  at  Ephesus?  Were  there  no  pastoral 
elders  [presbyter-bishops]  in  that  church,  in  the  year  96,  though 
Timothy  had  been  there  so  long  previously,  thirty  years  or 
more,  "  intrusted  with  the  right  of  ordination  ! ! "  If  there  were 
such  elders  there  in  that  year,  96,  as  there  certainly  was  also  an 
"  angel,"  then  our  Lord's  directing  an  epistle  concerning  the 
state  of  the  church,  and  the  trying  of  false  apostles,  to  the 
"  angel  "  individually,  and  not  to  the  elders  at  large,  or  to  the 
"  clergy  at  large,"  i.  e.  including  the  angel  with  the  rest,  is  a 
good  argument  for  Episcopacy.  The  alternative  thus  reached, 
is,  either  Timothy  committed  a  much  grosser  oversight  than 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  Ill 

will  be  ascribed  to  him,  in  not  ordaining  pastoral  elders  in  that" 
city,  or  the  reviewer  has  committed  an  oversight  of  some  mag- 
nitude, ill  "laying  out  of  view"  those  elders,  in  his  argument 
upon  tlie  case  of  llie  seven  churclies. 

We  frankly  acknowledge  that  we  do  not  understand  what  the 
reviewer  means  (p.  79)  in  recognising  as  a  question,  respecting 
the  elders  at  Ephesus,  mentioned  in  Acts  xx.,  "  wliether  tliey 
■were  ruling  elders,  or  presbyters,  ordained  to  preacti  as  well  as 
to  rule."  They  are  there  called  "overseers"  or  bishops;  we 
regard  such  persons  as  presbyter-bishops,  the  second  order, 
and  Presbyterians  give  the  name  bishop  to  their  07ily  order  of 
clergy  proper.  If  ruling  elders  are  bishops  also,  then  they  have 
two  orders  of  bishops,  wiiich  destroys  parity. 

Equally  above  our  comprehension  is  it,  tliat  the  reviewer,  after 
thus  recognising  "  ruling  elders,"  sliould  say  in  the  next  para- 
graph but  one,  "  There  are  but  tivo  orders  of  ministers  spoken 
of,  or  alluded  to,  in  the  epistles  [to  Timothy,]  bishops  and 
deaco7is."  Are  not  ruling  elders  "spoken  of"  in  those  epistles, 
according  to  Presbyterian  interpretation?  If  Presbyterian  dea- 
cons are  "  ministers,"  are  not  Presbyterian  ruling  elders,  who  rank 
above  them,  "  ministers"  also?  Here  again  we  are  sadl}'  in  the 
dark.  If  the  reviewer  disallows  the  office  of  a  ruling  elder,  dis- 
allowed also  by  his  opponent,  why  recognise  it  in  his  argument? 
and  why  say  that  the  epistles  of  Ignatius,  full  as  they  are  of 
"  bishop,  presbyters  and  deacons,"  seem  to  [his]  eyes  to  be  a 
plain  straiglit-forward  account  of  the  existence  of  Presbyterian- 
isin  in  his  time?"  If  he  allows  tliat  office,  why  intimate  that  it 
is  not  part  of  the  "  ministry  "  of  his  denomination,  while  that  of 
a  Presbyterian  deacon  is  ? 

The  reviewer  says  that  if  our  bishops,  claiming  to  be  the  suc- 
cessors of  the  apostles,  were  to  assume  the  name  "  apostles," 
Episcopacy  would  soon  be  "shorn  of  its  beams."  Very  likely. 
Tliey  have  lost  tlial  name  since  the  first  century  :  those  of  the 
present  day  are  not  responsible  for  the  change  :  yet  it  no  doubt 
was  wisely  made.  Let  us  try  tlie  converse  of  the  proposition. 
Presbyterian  ministers  of  the  thorough  sort  claim  likewise  to 
be  successors  of  tlie  apostles;  suppose  then  that  the]/  were  to 
assume  that  name,  what  would  become  of  tlie  "beams"  of 
Presbylerianism?  Again,  the  reviewer  favors  the  idea  that  the 
" '  angels^  were  pastors  of  the  churches,  presbyters  on  a  parity 
Willi  each  other;"  sup{)ose  then  Presbyterian  pastors  were  to 
assume  the  name  of  "  angels,"  the  Angel  of  the  church  in  Arch- 
street,  the  Angel  of  the  church  in  Pine-street,  the  Angel  of  the 
cliurcli  in  Washington-square,  would  the  "  beams"  of  their 
churclies  be  less  in  jeopardy  than  those  of  our  church  Mould  be 
from  tlie  titles,  the  Apostle  of  the  churcli  in  Pennsylvania,  the 
Apostle  of  the  church  in  Virginia,  the  Apostle  of  the  church  in 
Tennessee  ? 

Tiie  reviewer  thinks  that  as  presbyters  lay  on  hands  with  the 
bishop  when  a  presbyter  i.s  ordained,  "  it  is  in  fact,  a  Presbyle 


113  ANSWER   TO   A    REVIEW    OP 

rian  ordination."  We  think  otherwise.  When  Presbyterians 
ordain,  the  tlieory  is,  so  we  understand  their  writers,*  that  the 
authority  comes  from  that  one  of  their  presbyters  who  presides 
on  the  occasion,  the  others  being  present  to  express  the  consent 
of  tlie  Church,  in  other  words,  as  a  canonical  or  church  regula- 
tion to  prevent  any  one  man  from  performing  so  important  an 
act  b}-^  himself  alone.  This  is  Presbyterian  ordination  ;  the 
authority  flows,  not  from  a  presbytery,  but  from  a  Presbyterian 
presbyter.  So  precisely  in  the  case  of  our  ordinations.  The 
authority  flows  from  the  bishop  ;  the  presbyters  lay  on  hands 
to  denote  the  consent  of  the  Church,  to  show  that  the  bishop 
acts  canonically,  and  not  according  to  the  mere  impulse  of  his 
individual  will.  And  liiis  is  Episcopal  ordination,  because  the 
act  derives  its  virtue  from  the  bishop.  Ordination  by  one  pres- 
byter would  be  valid  among  Presbyterians,  and  the  ordination 
of  a  priest  by  the  bishop  alone  would  be  valid  among  Episcopa- 
lians ;  but  neither  would  accord  with  church  regulations. 

One  word  more  concerning  the  "  burden  of  proof,"  as  con- 
trasted with  the  "  presumptive  argument."  The  tract  claimed 
no  presumption  in  its  favor,  in  seeking  for  the  scriptural  proofs 
of  Episcopacy.  We  do — a  presumption  founded  on  common 
sense,  as  indicated  by  common  practice.  Set  aside  parity  and 
Episcopacy,  and  then  look  at  other  systevis  of  offi.ce,  both  reli- 
gious and  civil,  and  you  find  several  grades  of  officers.  In  the 
Patriarchal  Church  there  was  the  distinction  of  "high-priest" 
and  "  priest."  (Heb.  v.  10;  vi.  20.)  In  the  Jewish  Church,  (com- 
mon sense  being  in  this  case  unquestionably  divinely  approved,) 
there  were  the  high-priest,  priests,  and  Levites.  Among  Pagans 
and  Mahommedans  there  are  various  grades  in  the  office  deemed 
sacred.  Civil  governments  have  usually  governors,  a  president, 
princes,  a  king,  an  emperor,  &c.,  as  the  heads  of  the  general,  or 
state,  or  provincial  magistracies.  In  armies  and  navies  there  is 
always  a  chief.  If  the  reviewer  should  claim  exceptions,  we 
reply  they  are  exceptions  only,  and  ver)'  few  in  number.  The 
general  rule  is  with  us.  That  general  rule  next  to  universal 
is,  that  among  officers  there  is  a  difference  of  power,  of  rights, 
of  rank,  of  grade,  call  it  what  you  will.  And  this  general  rule 
gives  a  presumption  that  such  will  also  be  the  case  in  the  Chris- 
tian Church.  We  go  to  Scripture  then  with  the  presumptive 
argument  fully  against  parity.  If  we  should  find  in  Scripture 
neither  imparity  nor  parity,  still  common  sense  decides  for  the 
former.  If  we  find  the  tone  of  Scripture  doubtfid  on  this  point, 
imparity  has  the  advantage,  common  sense  turning  the  scale. 
If  we  find  there  intimations,  less  than  positive  injunctions,  in 
favor  of  imparity,  common  sense,  besides  the  respect  due  to 
Scripture,  decides  for  our  interpretation  of  them.  And  if  any 
thing  in  Scripture  is  supposed  to  prove  or  to  justify  parity,  it 
must  be  very  explicit  to  overturn  the  suggestion  of  common 


•  See  Form  of  Government,  chap.  14,  sect,  12. 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTDP.E.  113 

5eiise.     The  '-'presumptive  ari;iimeiit,"  then,  is  clearly  with  iis, 
and  ihe  "  burden  of  proof"  lies  on  puriiy. 

We  have  exceeded  the  limits  to  which  we  intended  to  confine 
onrselves — and  ihouuh  there  are  some  oilier  points  in  the  review 
whieli  we  are  temi)ted  to  notice,  we  must  be  content  with 
exlraclina  part  of  its  truly  elegant  and  courteous  tribute  to  the 
Episcopal  Ciiu:ch. 

■'  We  remember  that  it  was  under  the  Episcopacy  that  the 
Churcii  in  England  took  its  firm  stand  against  the  Papacy;  and 
that  this  was  its  form  wiien  Zion  rose  to  light  and  splendor  fronj 
tlie  dark  niglit  of  ages.  We  remember  Craniner,  —  Cranmer 
first,  in  many  respects,  among  the  reformers;  that  it  was  by  his 
steady  and  unerring  iiand,  that,  under  God,  the  pure  Cli-urcli  of 
liie  Saviour  was  conducted  through  the  agitating  and  distressing 
times  of  Henry  VIII.  We  remember  tliat  God  watched  over 
that  wonderful  man  ;  that  he  gave  this  distinguished  prehite 
access  to  the  heart  of  one  of  tlie  most  capricious,  cruel,  inexoia- 
ble,  blood-thirsty,  and  licentious  monarchs  that  lias  disgraced 
the  world  ;  that  God,  for  the  sake  of  Cranmer,  and  his  Cliuich, 
conducted  Henry,  as  '  by  a  hook  in  the  nose,'  and  made  him 
faithful  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  when  faithful  to  none 
else." 

"She  [the  Episcopal  Church]  is  consolidated;  well  mar- 
shalled; under  an  etlicient  system  of  laws;  and  pre-emineniiy 
fitted  for  powerful  action  in  tiie  field  of  Chn-^tian  warfare.  We 
desire  to  see  iier  what  the  Macedonian  phalanx  was  in  the  ancient 
army  ;  with  her  dense,  solid  organiziilion,  with  her  unity  of 
movement,  with  her  power  of  maintaining  the  position  whicli 
she  lakes;  and  with  her  eminent  abiliiy  to  advance  the  cause  of 
sacred  learning,  and  llie  love  of  order  and  of  law,  attending  or 
leading  all  otiier  churches  in  the  conquests  of  redempiion  in 
an  alienated  world.  We  should  even  rejoice  io  see  iier  who 
was  first  in  the  field,  at  the  Refoiniaiion  in  England,  fiisi,  also, 
in  the  field,  when  tlie  Son  of  God  shall  come  to  take  to  iiimself 
his  great  power,"  &c. 

A  truly  splendid  eulogium  on  our  Church, — and  one  which 
does  credit  to  the  camlor.  the  benevolence,  the  superiority  to 
prejudice,  of  the  elevated  mind  that  conceived  it,  and  the 
lioiioral)le  frankness  which  gave  it  public  utterance.  With  the 
feelings  of  such  a  heart  as  that  of  the  author  of  these  paragraphs, 
we  have,  we  can  have,  no  controversy  whatever — we  ratlu  r 
desire  to  copy  them  more  perfectly  ourselves,  and  be  taimiii 
more  of  the  grand  duly  of  love  by  an  opponent  who  so  noblv 
and  so  deligt'tfully  exemplifies  it.  We  would  only  ask-  11 
Episcopacy  is  to  be  found  llie  "first"  in  the  Church,  at  the 
Becond  advent  of  the  Son  of  Man,  is  it  probable  that  he  left  no 
Episcopacy  in  the  Church,  when  his  first  advent  terminated. 

H.  U.  O. 

10* 


ESSAY, 

On  the  Question,  —  When  did  Paul  place  Thhjthy  over  the 
Church  at  Ephesus? 


The  date  of  this  event  is  of  some  interest  to  those  who 
examine  the  controversy  between  Episcopacy  and  parity.  It 
is  very  far,  however,  from  being  essential  to  tiie  Episcopal 
cause,  as  a  few  remarks  will  show.  Parity  alleges,  —  siicli  at 
least  is  its  usual  and  most  advantageous  view  of  the  case, — that 
Timothy  was  placed  at  Ephesus  before  there  were  any  clergy 
there,  and  that  his  functions  were  to  ordain  a  supply  of  them, 
and  settle  the  new  church.  To  this  Episcopacy  replies,  tliat, 
even  granting  there  were  no  clergy  there  at  the  dale  assumed, 
it  is  evident,  from  tlie  epistles  to  Timothy,  that  he  individually 
had  supreme  power,  both  in  governing  and  ordain  ng,  and 
that  there  is  no  evidence  that  this  supreme  power  of  tliat  in- 
dividual chief  officer  passed  afterward  to  the  bo-Jy  of  clergy, 
or  was  in  any  respect  modified  or  restricted  ;  and  that  besides 
this  want  of  evidence  that  parity  took  the  place  of  this  arrange- 
ment equivalent  to  Episcopacy,  the  second  epistle  affords  positive 
proof  that  it  did  not,  since  in  that  epistle,  when  there  certainly 
were  clergy  at  Ephesus,  Timothy  is  still  addressed  individually, 
and  as  the  head  of  its  church.  Episcopacy  further  declares, 
that  it  is  oiot  to  be  taken  for  granted  that  there  were  no  clergy 
at  Ephesus,  at  even  the  earliest  date  of  Timothy's  being  placed 
there  by  St.  Paul ;  and  moreover,  that  the  proper  date  of  this 
event  is  later,  when  there  were  at  that  place  the  elders  addressed 
by  Paul,  (in  Acts  xx.,)  with  others  to  keep  up  or  increase  their 
number.  And  an  irrefutable  argument  for  Episcopacy  is  drawn 
from  comparing  that  address  to  the  Ephesian  elders,  which  con- 
tains not  a  hint  of  tlieir  right  to  ordain  and  exercise  clerical  dis- 
cipline, with  the  epistles  to  Timothy  individually,  as  connected 
witli  the  same  church,  which  recognise  those  rigiits  as  existing 
in  him  in  all  fulness  and  perfection. 

It  will  thus  be  seen,  that  the  question  concerning  the  proper 
date  of  the  placing  of  Timothy  at  Epliesus,  though  not  vital  in 
this  controversy,  is  yet  one  of  much  interest. 

Three  dates  of  this  event  have  been  suggested,  and,  as  far  as 
the  present  writer's  information  extends,  tiiree  (m\y.  St.  Paul 
writes,  "  I  besought  thee  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus,  when  I  went 
into  Macedonia,"  (1  Tim.  i.  3;)  of  course  the  date  to  be  assigned 
must  be  consistent  with  some  journey  of  that  apostle  into  Mace- 
donia. Of  Paul's  journeys  into  that  region,  after  the  founding  of 
a  church  at  Ephesus,  there  were  three.  Tiie  first  was  after  a 
riot  had  driven  him  from  that  city.*    The  second  was  soon  after, 


♦  Acts  XX.  1.     This  journey  bad  been  intended  by  Paul,  (1  Cor.  xvi.  5,  6,)  but  the 
riot  hastened  his  deparlure. 
(  114; 


TIMOTHY    AT   EPHESOS.  115 

when  having  been  in  Greece,  he  returned  to  Syria  circuitcusly, 
(hrougli  .Macedonia,  on  accomit  of  the  niaclnaaiions  of  tlie  Jews, 
(Acls\x.  3.)  The  third  was  still  later,  after  his  first  iinprison- 
iiieut  in  Rome,  when  he  again  visited  the  eastern  churches,  as 
will  be  shown  uuder  the  proper  head  of  this  essay.  We  sliall 
borrow  a  portion  of  the  following  remarks  from  Mackiiight's 
preface  to  the  First  Epistle  to  Timothy,  and  from  several  pieces 
entitled  "  Timothy  at  Ephesus,"  in  the  Church  Register,  for 
March  and  April,  1827. 

1.  Presbyterian  controvertists  generally,  as  also  many  other 
writers  of  hi^h  authority,  favor  the  opinion,  that  Paul  placed 
Timothy  at  E^pliesus  when  he  fled  from  that  city,  and  went  into 
Macedonia,  after  the  riot  mentioned  in  Acts  xix.  23-41.  And 
thev  allege,  in  behalf  of  parity,  that  there  were  then  no  clergy 
in  the  Ephesian  churcii,  and  that  Timothy  was  to  ordain  a  sup- 
ply of  them,  in  his  supposed  temporary  relation  to  that  church 
as  an  evangelist. 

As  to  Tiinotliy's  having  had  supreme  power  in  Ephesus,  or 
any  wiiere  else,  merely  as  an  evangelist,  a  full  refutation  of  that 
opinion  will  be  found  in  the  po^nscript  to  "  Episcopacy  Tested  by 
Scripture,"  contained  in  the  Protestant  Episcopalian  for  Decem- 
ber, 1830  ;  that  essay  is  now  circulating  as  a  tract. 

As  to  there  having  been  no  clergy  in  Ephesus  when  Paul  fled 
thence,  after  the  "  uproar,"  into  Macedonia,  it  is  an  assertion 
infinitelv  improbable.  He  had  now  been  there  "three  years." 
He  iiad 'previously  made  a  sliort  slay  in  that  city;  after  which, 
Apollos  '■  taught  diligently  ttiere  the  things  of  the  LoHn,"  having 
Aqiiila  and  Priscilla  to  help  him,  and  so  advanced  llie  great 
cause,  tliat  some  were  called  "  tiie  brethren."  (Acts  xviii.  19-28.) 
When  Paul  reached  them  again,  some  who  had  received  only 
John's  baptism,  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  with  a  will- 
ingness which  showed  tliat  Cliristianity  had  taken  root  among 
them,  (Acts  xix.  1-5.)  After  three  months,  Paul  "  separated  the 
disci  pies"  from  tlie  synagogue,  (  Acts  xix.  9 :)  and  when  Jewish  con- 
verts would  bear  any  thing  like  sucli  a  separation,  thev  certainly 
were  past  the  most  difficult  part  of  their  noviciate,  and  some  of 
them  either  were,  or  could  soon  be,  prepared  for  the  ministry. 
Sliall  we  believe,  tlien,  tliat  Paul  would  leave  this  Christian 
churcii,  now  fully  severed  from  the  synagogue,  for  two  years, 
or  nearly  three,  without  providing  it  ministers,  when  he  knew 
the  dangers  to  which  he  was  constantly  exposed  ^  Sliall  we 
believe  that,  when  "the  word  of  God  had  miglitily  grown  and 
prevailed"  in  that  city,  he  would  send  away  Timotliy  and  Eras- 
tus,  (Acts  xix.  22.)  without  having  ordained  otliers.  or  else  doing 
it  without  delay?  The  supposition  is  not  credible.  Nor  is  it 
countenanced  by  other  parts  of  the  holy  record  :  for  that  apostle 
and  Hirn  abas  iiad  ordained  elders,  in  other  .\siatic  cities,  in  much 
Ih.ss  than  two  years,  (Acts  xiv.  23.)  Long  before  Paul  tied  from 
Ephesus,  clergymen  must  liave  been  appointed  for  that  church; 
il  not,  he  made  less  provision  for  the  numerous  converts  in  thj»t 


IIG  TIMOTHY   AT   EPHESUS. 

most  important  city,  than  was  made  for  fewer  converts  in  cities 
less  important ;  wliich  is  a  supposition  infinitely  improbable. 

As  to  there  having  been  no  clergy  in  Epiiesus  when  Timothy 
was  placed  there,  be  the  date  of  that  occurrence  early  or  late, 
we  know  to  the  contrary.  St.  Paul  writes  to  liim  tliat  he  was 
placed  there,  ''  that  he  migtit  cliarge  some  that  tliey  teach  no 
other  doctrine,"  (ITim.  i.  3;)  which  implies  that  there  were 
already  feac/iers  in  that  church,  "some"  of  whom  inculcated 
error.  It  follows,  that  many  authorized  teachers,  or  ordained 
clergymen,  were  in  Ephesus  wlien  Timothy  was  directed  to  as- 
sume the  superintendence  of  that  body  of  Christians.  As  then 
these  clergymen  required  such  a  superintendent  among  them, 
both  to  govern  them,  and  to  ordain  others,  it  is  rightly  concluded 
that  they  had  not  within  tliemselves  the  power  of  either  ordina- 
tion or  clerical  discipline.  And  tliis  destroys  the  claim  of  parity, 
and  establishes  that  of  Episcopacy. 

In  tliis  view,  it  may  seem  unnecessary  to  discuss  the  question, 
When  was  Timothy  placed  at  Ephesus  as  tlie  cliief  officer  of  its 
church  ?  But,  as  any  one  trutli  strengthens  any  other  related 
to  it,  this  point  will  now  be  considered. 

We  assert  that  Timothy  was  not  placed  over  the  church  at 
Ephesus  when  Paul  fled  thence  to  Macedonia,  after  the  riot. 
Here  let  the  point  of  the  argument  be  distinctly  noticed.  Paul 
says,  "  I  besought  thee  to  abide  still  at  Epiiesus,  when  I  went 
into  Macedonia."  Of  course  Timothy  must  have  been  there,  or 
had  his  residence  tliere  at  tlie  time  of  tliis  request,-or  else  been 
so  connected  with  that  church  as  tiiat  it  was  his  ecclesiastical 
home;  and  his  residence  or  ecclesiastical  home  was  also  to  be 
there  for  a  considerable  period  afterward,  or  rattier  permanently, 
since  ttiere  is  no  hint  any  wiiere  in  Scripture,  that  his  functions 
in  Ephesus,  when  placed  over  that  church,  would  at  any  time 
cease. 

Now,  Timothy  was  not  at  Ephesus  when  Paul  fled,  after  the 
riot,  into  Macedonia.  He  and  Erastus  had  been  sent  away  some 
time  previously  to  Macedonia,  and  Timothy  also  to  Corinth, 
(Acts  xix.  22  ;  1  Cor.  iv.  17;  xvi.  10;)  and  there  is  no  evidence 
that  he  returned  before  the  Apostle  lied  from  Ephesus.*  Nay, 
there  is  evidence  of  tlie  contrary,  as  will  readily  appear.  Thus: 
Paul  wrote  the  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians  from  Ephesus, 
and  in  it  Timothy  is  spoken  of  as  then  on  his  mission  [to  Mace- 
donia first,  and  then]  to  Corinth  ;  he  probably  took  this  epistle, 
(I  Cor.  iv.  17;  xvi.  8.  10.)  The  second  epistle  was  written  after 
the  riot  and  Paul's  tlight,  which  are  there  mentioned,  (2  Cor. 
i.  8-10.)  In  the  first  epistle,  several  abuses  among  the  Corinth- 
ians are  censured  ;  and  Paul  would  have  heard  from  Timothy 
whether  his  censures  were  effectual,  had  he   returned  to  tlie 


*  St.  Paul  expected  Timothy  to  "come  unto  him"  from  Corinth,  but  where,  floes 
not  appear  ;  it  may  have  been  in  Macedonia,  as  probably  as  in  Ephesus,  (1  Cor. 
xvi.  5,  8,  10.  1)-.) 


TIMOTFIY   AT   EPHESUS.  117 

Apo?lle  while  yet  at  Ephesus ;  instead  of  which  he  ohtains  the 
first  intelligence,  not  from  Timothj-,  but  from  Tilus,  afti^r  reach- 
itior  Macedonia.  (2  Cor.  ii.  13  ;  vii.  6-16.)  Titns,  il  appears,  was 
reitirning  from  Corinth  before  Timothy,  who  also  left  lliere  soon 
afterward,  in  lime  to  meet  Panl  in  Macedonia,  where  the  two 
latter  united  in  tiie  second  epistle  to  the  Corinlliians.  (2  Cor.  i.  1.) 
Let  ns  notice  more  fully  the  above  particulars.  St.  Paul  flies 
from  Ephesus  to  Troas,  where  he  hoped  to  meet  Titus,  and  get 
the  intelligence  from  the  Corinthians  that  he  so  much  desired, 
(2  Cor.  ii.  12,  13;)  and  this  his  looking  for  Tilus  only,  implies 
that  the  Apostle  scarcely  expected  that  Timotliy,  who  certainly 
cannot  (without  the  clearest  proof)  be  supposed  to  have  aban- 
doned his  mission  to  Corinth,  had  yet  left  the  latter  place  ;  and 
this,  obviously,  further  implies  that  he  could  not,  at  the  date  of 
the  "uproar"'  whicti  drove  away  Paul,  have  returned  thence  to 
Ephesus.  Paid  continues  his  journey  from  Troas  to  Macedonia, 
yet  still  has  no  tidintrs  from  tlie  Corinthians,  till  Tilus  "comes" 
to  him,  and  "comforts"  his  "cast  down"  spirit  by  the  inlel- 
lisience  that  he  had  rectified  the  abuses  among  those  brethren. 
(2  Cor.  vii.  6,  &c.)  Not  once  does  Paul  refer  to  any  news  from 
them,  favorable  or  unfavorable,  brought  by  Timothy.  If  these 
facts  do  not  prove,  in  the  absence  of  all  intimations  whatever  to 
the  contrary,  that  Timothy  had  not  returned  to  Ephesus  wlien 
Paul  fled,  no  confidence  can  be  placed  in  the  strongest  circum- 
stantial evidence.  And  if  Timothy  was  not  there,  wiien  Paul 
then  "  went  into  Macedonia,"  it  could  not  be  said  tliat  Paul  then 
"  besought  him  to  cbide  there  still."  In  other  words,  it  was  not 
on  the  occasion  of  this  departure  of  the  Apostle  for  Macedonia 
that  Timothy  was  placed  over  the  church  at  Ephesus. 

Neither  was  Timothy  so  connected  with  Ephesus  at  that  time, 
as  to  make  it  his  ecclesiastical  home  ;  for  his  principal  duties 
were  just  now  in  Macedonia  and  Corinth  ;  and  even  previously, 
his  clerical  connexion  had  rather  been  with  Patd  than  ttie  Ephe- 
sImus.  (Acts  xix.  22.)  Nor  was  he  at  Ephesus  for  some  time 
after;  for  he  was  with  Paul  awhile  in  Macedonia,  when  he  join- 
ed in  the  second  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  and  still  witii  him  in 
Cireece,  from  a  port  of  which  region  he  and  others  sailed  to 
rejoin  that  aposile  at  Troas;  (Acts  xx.  1-5;)  and  as  Paul,  in 
thus  prosecuting  his  voyage  to  Jerusalem,  did  not  go  to  Eplie- 
sus,  (Acts  XX.  16,  17,)  and  said  nothing  to  the  elders  of  that 
church  whom  he  met  at  Miletus,  of  Timothy's  being  then  left 
among  them,  we  conclude  with  commentators  in  general,  that 
the  latter  did  not  then  tarry  there,  but  went  onward  to  Jerusa- 
lem with  the  great  Apostle. 

2.  The  next  opinion  is,  that  Timothy  was  placed  over  the 
Epiiesian  church  at  a  period  some  nionihs  later  than  the  riot, 
when  Paul,  being  prevented  by  the  Jinvs  from  sailing  directly 
from  Greece  to  Syria,  (as  we  have  just  seen,)  went  circuitously 
thither  through  Macedonia.  (Acts  xx.  3,  6.)  We  have  shown, 
however,  that  Timothy  was  not  in  Ephesus  at  this  time,  nor  so 


Xl8  TIMOTHY   AT   EPHESUS. 

specially  connected  with  it  as  to  make  it  his  ecclesiastical  home; 
of  course  Paul  could  not  with  propriety  say  to  iiim,  "I  besought 
thee  to  abide  sLill  at  Ephesus."  For  tliis  reason,  we  cannot 
allow  //;/.s- journey  of  Paul  into  Macedonia  to  have  been  the  date 
of  Timotliy's  beiug  ])laced  over  the  Ephesian  cliurch. 

Another  argunieut  of  great  force  precludes  the  supposition 
that  Tiuiotliy  was  phiced  ihere  at  any  lime  before  Paul  deliver- 
ed his  address  to  the  clergy  of  tliat  city,  as  stated  in  Acts  xx.  ; 
and  tliis  arguuient  applies  to  both  the  present  tiieory  of  tlie  date 
ill  question,  and  tiie  one  we  have  before  noticed.  In  that 
address  Paul  speaks  of  the  errors  and  misleadings  of  false  teach- 
ers, as  yei  future ;  he  makes  no  complaiut  of  them  as  ifien 
existing  in  Epiiesus  ;  but  says  they  "shall  arise,"  and  "shall 
enter  in."  (Acts  xx.  29,  3U.)  Ilut,  in  the  first  epistle  toTimotliy, 
lie  desires  him  to  "charge  some  to  teach  no  oilier  doctrine," 
intimating  tiiat  the  false  teacliers  had,  at  the  date  of  that  epistle, 
begun  their  mischievous  proceedings;  he  enumerates  as  errors 
then  existing  there,  fables,  endless  genealogies,  swerving  from 
charity  and  faith  to  vain  jangling,  questions  and  strifes  of  words, 
perverse  disputings,  profane  and  vain  babblings,  and  oppositions 
of  science  falsely  so  called  ;  he  also  names  Hynieneus  and 
Alexander,  whose  doctrines  had  been  so  hurtful,  that* he  had 
"delivered  them  unto  Satan."  (1  Tim.  i.  3-6;  vi.  4,  5,  20;  i.  20.) 
Now,  besides  that  it  is  wholly  improbable  that  all  these  evils 
could  have  befallen  the  Ephesian  church  in  ihe  few  months 
that  elapsed  between  PauTs  fliffht  and  bis  address  to  their  elders, 
it  is  impossible  that  so  much  false  teaching  could  have  existed 
there  at  the  very  time  he  told  the  elders  that  the  false  teachers 
were  yet  to  spring  up.  It  follows  nnavoidably  that  the  station- 
ing of  Timothy  there  was  subsequent  to  the  address  of  St.  Paul 
to  the  elders  in  Acts  xx.,  and  indeed  that  there  must  have  been 
an  interval  of  some  duration,  to  allow  so  extensive  a  develop- 
ment of  error  and  delusion  among  the  Ephesian  clergy.  And 
hence,  we  again  assert,  that  as  both  Paul's  flight  into  Macedonia, 
and  his  going  thither  again  from  Greece,  were  previous  to  the 
address  referred  lo,  neither  of  those  dates  can  be  allowed  for 
the  placing  of  Timothy  at  Ephesus.  To  the  present  writer,  this 
argument  appears  to  have  the  force  of  demonstration. 

It  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that  if  this  second  date  could 
be  allowed,  there  would  be  a  remarkable  proof  of  Episcopacy  in 
the  fact,  that  the  first  epistle  to  Timothy  and  the  address  to  the 
elders  would  both  have  issued  from  the  great  Apostle  at  the 
same  period,  the  one  assigning  Episcopal  duties  to  Timothy, 
the  otiier  enjoining  only  pastoral  duties  on  the  elders.  The 
Apostle  would  thus  have  delivered  siniultaiieorisly  the  records 
of  the  functions  of  each,  showing  that  the  one  was  superior,  and 
the  o,thers  inferior  in  the  sacred  (tffice.  But  as  the  evidence  is 
against  the  supposition  that  tiiese  two  charges  were  delivered  at 
tl'.e  same  time,  tiiis  striking  view  of  that  proof  of  Episcopacy 
cannot  be  maint^ied.     The  substance,  however,  of  that  i,roof 


TIMOTHY   AT   EPHESUS.  119 

is  fullj'-ours;  no  ingenuity  can  impair  the  scriptuial  demonstra- 
tion of  Episcopacy  founded  on  the  comparison  of  the  address  to 
tilt"  elders  as  pastors,  with  the  epistles  to  Timothy  as  supreme 
olficer  or  bishop. 

3.  A  third  date  for  the  connexion  of  Timothy  with  the  Ephe- 
sian  church  has  been  mentioned,  and  this  now  claims  our  atten- 
tion. We  assert  that  Timothy  was  in  Ephesus  some  years  afler 
the  above  two  dates,  and  that  Paul  likewise  "went"  (or  "was 
going,"  as  the  word  may  he  translated,)  into  Macedonia  after 
tiie  two  journeys  thither  already  referred  to.  After  that  apos- 
tle's first  imprisonment  in  Rome,  is  the  date  we  assign  as  the 
only  one  that  can  be  defended.  We  find  it  plainly  recorded, 
tliat  botli  he  and  Timothy  were  again  at  that  later  period  in 
tiiese  eastern  parts,  though  it  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Acts,  as 
that  boolv  ends  with  Paul's  first  detention  in  the  imperial  city. 

'i'lie  reader  will  see  in  the  following  proofs  that  Timothy  was 
certainly  in  Epiiesus,  and  that  Paul  probably  "  went,"  and  cer- 
tainly ""was  going"  into  IMacedonia  after  that  aposlle  was  first 
in  Rome.  Timothy  was  with  him,  be  it  recollected,  in  the  latter 
city.  (Piiil.  i.  1,  13.)  A\'e  sliall  first  adduce  the  evidence  of  their 
intention  to  go  eastward  from  Rome,  and  then  the  evidence  that 
they  did  so,  first  as  regards  St.  Paul,  and  then  as  regards 
Timothy. 

Paul  intended  to  visit  Philippi  in  IMacedonia  after  leaving 
Rome.  He  wrote  to  the  Philippians  wIumi  he  was  in  that  city, 
where  liis  "bonds  in  Christ  were  manifest  in  all  the  palace,"  or 
"  Caesar's  couct,"  as  in  the  margin.  lie  assures  the  church  in 
Piiilippi,  that  he  "  trusted  in  the  Lord  thtit  he  would  come 
shortly"  to  them  ;  nay,  he  writes  more  strongly,  "I  know  that 
I  shall  abide  and  continue  with  you  all  .  .  .  that  your  rejoicing 
may  be  more  abundant  ...  by  my  coming  to  you  again  ;"  he 
seems  even  to  intimate  the  possibility  of  frequent  visits,  "That 
whetiier  I  come  and  see  you,  or  else  be  absent."  (Phil.  i.  13; 
ii.  24;  i.  25-27.)  This  is  evidence  sufficient  that  Paul  designed 
going  into  Macedonia  when  he  should  leave  Rome. 

Paul  intended  to  visit  Philemon  after  his  release  from  Rome, 
and  even  ordered  a  "  lodginy"  to  be  prepared  for  him  in  Colosse, 
where  Philemon  resided.*  Colosse  was  in  Phrygia,  in  Asia  Minor, 
and  sufficiently  near  Ephesus.  Of  course,  it  was  Paul's  inten- 
tion to  visit  the  countries  on  that  side  the  i^igcan  Sea,  and  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Ephesus,  after  leaving  Rome  ;  for  the  epistle  to 
Philemon  was  written  while  Paul  was  yet  a  prisoner  in  that 
citv.  (See.  v.  10.) 

i'ijul  intended  to  visit  the  Hebrews  after  his  release  at  Rome. 
He  wrote  tlie  epistle  to  them  from  Italv,  aufl  says  expressly,  "  I 
will  see  you,"  (lleb.  xiii.  19,  23,  21.)     The  Hebrews  weie  either 


»  Pliilcm.  2:?.  TliC  proof  llint  Pliilomon  i-osideil  in  Colosse  will  be  scfe.i  l)y  com- 
paring Philfiin.  2,  wilh  Col.  iv.  17;  in  bolli  wliicli  passaiie.x  Anliippuff  is  named  as 
^  inini.sler  livin;j;  at  llit  pla(;e  to  wliieii  holli  cpi:=>los  were  sent;  bulli  being  sent  at 
\ic  same  lime  by  Onesimus.     (Cul.  iv.  0;  Pliil  in.  \i.) 


120  TIMOTHY   AT   EPHESUS. 

the  Jewish  converts  in  Judea,  or  the  Jewish  converts  at  large. 
If  those  in  Judea  are  meant,  he  promised  to  proceed  to  that 
country  after  leaving  Italy.  If  those  at  large  are  meant,  we  are 
secure  in  saying  there  were  vastly  more  of  them  east  of  Italj'^, 
than  in  any  otlier  direction;  and,  in  tiiis  view,  he  promised  to 
visit,  after  iiis  release,  the  eastern  countries  of  ihe  Mediterranean ; 
and  there  were  so  many  new  churches,  including  Jewish  con- 
verts, on  both  sides  of  the  ^gean  Sea,  that  we  may  justly  regard 
his  promised  voyage  as  including  them  :  among  these  churches, 
tliose  at  Ephesus  and  Philippi  (in  Macedonia)  were  conspicuous. 

Paul  did  visit  Miletum  or  Miletus,  after  his  release  at  Kome , 
he  writes  to  Timotliy  that  he  had  left  Trnphimus  sick  at  that 
place.  (2  Tim.  iv.  20.)  There  was  a  Miletus  near  Ephesus, 
where  Paul  met  the  elders,  and  another  in  Crete.  (See  Ca'met. 
Acts  XX.  17.)  If  the  former  be  here  meant,  then  Paul,  after  leav- 
ing Rome,  was  in  the  very  neigliborhood  of  Ephesns.  But  as,  at 
tiie  date  of  tliis  second  epistle,  Timotliy  was  himself  in  Lphesus, 
and  Paul  now  again  in  Rome,  he  would  not  probably  write  to 
him  respecting  Trophimus  if  lie  were  in  thttt  Miletus,  so  near 
Timotliy's  residence;  and  it  therefore  is  more  justly  pvesumed 
that  the  Miletum  in  Crete  was  the  place  where  Tropjiidius  was 
left  sick.  If  this  latter  was  tiie  Miletum  intended,  liu^n  Paul 
was  again  in  Crete  after  his  first  imprisonment,  for  tiie  date  of 
this  second  epistle  to  Timothy,  is  his  second  imprisonment;* 
and  if  in  Crete,  he  was  among  the  eastern  churches,  and  siifii- 
ciently  near  the  iEgean  Sea  to  visit  its  coasts,  including  Ephesus 
and  Macedonia  ;  the  latter  visit  he  had  almost  posiiively  promised 
the  Philippians,  as  was  shown  in  a  former  paragraph. 

Paul  did  visit  Corinth  after  leaving  Rome.  I5esides  mention- 
ing to  Timothy,  as  above  stated,  that  lie  had  left  Trophimus  at 
Miletum,  he  also  says,  in  the  same  verse,  "Erastus  abode  at 
CoYinth."  He  could  not  mean  that  he  had  remained  there  ever 
since  his  mission  to  that  city,  six  or  seven  years  before,  for 
Timothy  had  been  often  with  Paul  since  that  time,  and  would 
have  been  fully  informed  that  Erastus  had  continued  thus  sta- 
tionary. No  ;  Paul  connects  the  tarrying  of  Erastus  at  Corinth 
with  his  leaving  Trophimus  at  Miletum,  meaning  that  the  two 
incidents  had  occurred  at  the  same  period,  and  recentlJ^  Hence 
Doddridge  remarks,  "It  seems  by  this  clause  that  [Erastus]  was 
in  Paul's  company  when  he  parted  with  Timothy,  as  it  is  likely 
Trophimus  also  was.  And,  as  none  can  suppose  Paul  would 
have  mentioned  these  things  to  Timothy  in  this  connexion,  if 
they  had  happened  many  years  before,  (Acti  xix.  22,)  I  look 


*  2  Tim.  i.  8,  16,  17;  ii. ;  iv.  6,  16.  Paul  had  been  in  Crete  on  his  firpt  voyap-e  to 
Rome  3S  a  prisoner."  (Acts  xxvii.  8.)  But  this  was  long-  before  the  date  of  this 
epistle;  and  the  sicl<ness  of  Trophiiinis  is  mentioned  ar  a  recent  occnrience.  Be- 
sides, Timothy  liad  been  with  Puid  in  Rome  since  that  landincr  in  Crete,  and  wonld 
know  of  this  sickness,  had  it  then  occurred,  without  any  allusion  to  it  in  the  epistle. 
Of  course,  Tropliimus  was  left  at  Milotuin  afterward,  i.  e.  subsequently  to  Paul's 
discltarge  from  his  first  imprisonment  in  Rome  ;  Paul  beina  then  again  in  Crete. 


TIMOTHY    AT   EPHESUS.  1*21 

upon  this  as  a  very  material  arffiinient  to  prove  tliat  lie  retiinu'd 
mlo  these  enstern  part^^,  between  his  first  ami  second  iiniirisim- 
nieiit  at  Rome;  tlioiigii  probabl)^,  if  he  ever  saw  Epiiesiis  as^am, 
most  of  the  ministers  of  that  and  the  neighboring  phiees,  with 
whom  he  had  tlie  celebrated  interview  at  Miletus,  mentioned 
Acts  XX.,  were  either  dead  or  removed." 

Paul  did  Tisil  eastern  parts  after  his  first  imprisonment  at 
Rome.  In  Tit.  iii.  13,  we  read  that  lie  had  determined  to  spend 
a  v\  inter  at  Nicopolis.  There  were  several  cities  of  this  name  ;  in 
3Iaccd()nia,  in  one  or  more  of  tiie  neigliboring  provinces,  and  in 
Pinitus  in  Asia3Imor;  it  matters  not,  at  present,  whicli  of  them 
is  iiere  meant.  Wlien  tiien  was  Paul  in  Nicopolis,  or  so  near  it 
as  to  "  determine  there  to  winter  ?"  it  was  after  leaving  Titus  in 
Crete.  (Tit.  i.  5.)  Now,  the  first  we  know  of  Paid's  being  in 
Crete,  was  his  landing  there,  when  on  his  voyage  to  Rome  ;  then, 
however,  he  was  a  prisoner,  and  could  iiave  had  no  expectation 
of  v.'intering  in  Nicopolis.  It  must,  tlierefore,  have  been  after 
his  release  at  Rome,  that  he  left  Titus  in  Crete,  having  been 
again  in  that  island.  And  subsequently  to  tiiis,  he  was  in  or 
near  the  Nicopolis  which  he  selected  for  his  winter  residence. 
This  brings  back  tiiflt  apostle  from  Rome  to  either  Macedonia  or 
Asia  Minor  ;  and  he  doubtless  revisited  both  these  regions. 

Paul  did  visit  Troas  after  liis  first  imprisonment  in  Rome. 
He  desired  Timothy  to  bring  llience  his  cloak,  books  and  parch- 
ments. (2  Tim.  iv.  13.)  That  he  left  them  there  after  liis  first 
visit  to  Rome,  is  exceedingly  probable  ;  for  tiie  last  time  he  was 
at  Troas  before  being  a  prisoner,  was  in  A.  D.  6(J;  and  we  cannot 
suppose  he  would  leave  these  things  there  till  A.  D.  66,  when  he 
wrote  to  Timotiiy  to  bring  them  ;  we  know  that,  while  a  prisoner, 
both  in  C  i  sarea  and  Rome,  he  could  send  and  receive  ntes- 
sengers  freely.  (Acts  xxiv.  23 ;  Phil.  ii.  25;  iv.  18;  Eph.  vi.  21  ; 
Col.  iv.  7,  9,  10.)  If  to  tliis  probability  we  add  the  evidence 
already  adduced,  that  Paul  returned  from  Rome  to  tlie  east,  it 
will  appear  indisputable  that  he  was  at  that  period  in  Troas,  and 
left  there  tiie  things  mentioned.  Troas  was  near  Macedonia,  and 
on  tiie  same  coast  with  Ephesus. 

Let  us  now  recapitulate  tlie  evidence  of  Paul's  return  eastward 
from  Rome.  His  intention  was  to  visit  Philippi,  Colosse,  the 
Hebrews.  He  actually  iras  at  Miletum,  at  Corinth,  at  or  near 
Mcopolis,  at  Troas.  AH  this  we  prove  from  Scripture.  Who 
can  doubt  then  that  he  was  on  the  shores  of  tlie  ^gean  Sea,  after 
his  release  from  the  tribunal  of  CfEsar,  when  brought  before  it 
the  first  time?  Or,  who  w^l  say  that  our  evidence  is  insutlicient, 
M-hen  we  assert,  that,  as  the  first  two  dates  assigned  for  his 
placing  Timothy  at  Ephesus  are  indefensible,  it  must  have  been 
now,  m  these  later  voyages,  that  he  committed  that  church  to 
this  his  favorite  son  in  "the  faith,  and  went  on  himself  to  Mace- 
donia? 

Hut  we  shall  strengthen  this  body  of  argument  by  showing  that 
Timothy  ai.so  rctiinied  to  tlie  cast,  after  being  with  Paul  in  Rome. 
11 


123  TITVIOTHY   AT   EPHE9US. 

Paul  intended  to  send  Timolhy  to  Piiilippi,  when  lie  should  bo 
free  to  depart  from  Rome — "  1  trust  in  tlie  Lonn  Jesus  to  send 
Timolheiis  shortly  unto  you;"  "him,  Iheielore,  I  liope  to  send 
presently,  so  soon  as  I  shall  see  how  it  will  go  with  me."  (Phil, 
ii.  19,  23.) 

Paul  intended  that  Timothy  should  accompany  him  to  the 
Hebrews — "  Our  brother  Timolliy  is  set  at  liberty,  with  whom,  if 
he  come  sliorUy,  I  will  see  you."  (Heb.  xiii.  23.^  From  tliis 
passaije  it  appears  that  Timothy  had  also  been  a  prisoner  in 
Kome,  but  was  now  released.  At  tlie  moment  of  Paul's  wriiiiig 
Timothy  had,  for  a  short  time,  left  him  ;  according  to  Grolius, 
this  excursion  was  into  Gaul,  but  he  was  soon  expected  back  to 
accompany  Paul  on  his  eastern  voyage. 

Timolhy  actiialli/  was  among  the  eastern  clinrches,  after  leav- 
ing Rome.  Willie  in  Rome,  Paul  writes  to  the  Colossians  con- 
cerning Marcus  or  Mark, — '•  If  he  come  unto  you,  receive  him  :" 
(Col.  iv.  10:)  which  shows  that  Mark  was  expected  to  go  to 
Colosse.  In  the  second  epistle  to  Timothy,  written  after  Paul's 
first,  and  during  his  second  imprisonment,  he  writes — '•  Take 
Mark,  and  brmg  him  with  thee"  to  Rome.  (2  Tim.  iv.  11.) 
Mark,  therefore,  had  gone  to  Colosse;  and  Timothy  was  now 
again  so  near  that  place,  that  Paul  desired  the  latter  to  summon 
the  former,  or  "  take"  him  on  his  way,  to  rejoin  himself,  again 
in  bonds  in  Rome. 

Timolhy  actually  was,  after  leaving  Rome,  so  near  Troas,  on 
the  iEgean  coast,  that  Paul,  in  the  second  epistle  to  him,  desired 
him  to  slop  there  for  his  cloak,  books,  and  parchments,  or  else  to 
obtain  them  from  tliat  place,  and  bring  them  with  him  to  Rome, 
where  the  great  Apostle  was  now  again  imprisoned.  (2  Tim. 
iv.  13.)  This,  be  it  remarked,  is  positive  evidence,  depending  in  no 
degree  on  construction.  And  it  renders  it  infallibly  certain  that 
Timothy  was  in  the  regions  not  far  from  Ephesus  at  this  late 
period,  the  second  epistle  to  him  being  of  the  date  of  A.  D.  60. 
With  such  a  positive  basis,  conjecture  uses  but  moderate  license 
in  adding,  that  Timothy  was  in  Ephesus  itself,  when  this  epistle 
was  addressed  to  him. 

Timothy  actually  was,  we  now  further  assert,  in  Ephesus 
itself  after  being  Paul's  companion  in  his  first  imprisonment  at 
Rome.  The  second  epistle  to  him,  written  after  that  period,  is 
still  our  authority.  1.  Paul,  as  was  not  unusual  with  him, 
names  the  messenger  by  whom  he  sent  this  epistle,  and  says 
that  he  had  despatched  him  to  Ephesus — "Tychjcus  have  I  sent 
to  Ephesus."  (2  Tim.  iv.  12;  see  also  ^om.  xvi.  1  ;  1  Cor.  iv.  17; 
xvi.  10;  2  Cor.  viii.  16,  18 ;  Eph.  vi.  21  ;  Phil.  ii.  25 ;  Col.  iv.  7,  9  ; 
Philem.  12;  also  1  Pet.  v.  12.)  2.  Paul,  in  this  second  epistle, 
desires  Timothy  to  salute  the  family  of  Onesiphorus  ;  and  this 
excellent  person's  residence  was  in  Ephesus.  (2  Tim.  iv.  19; 
comp.  do.  i.  16-18.)  3.  In  the  first  epistle,  when  Timothy  was 
confessedly  at  Ephesus,  Paul  mentions  Hymeneus  and  Alex- 
ander, as  unfaithful  ministers  of  that  church;  in  the  second, 


TIMOTHY    AT   EPHESOS,  123 

epislle  he  again  names  the  same  persons  to  Timothy,  (1  Tim. 
i.  C»'J;  2  Tim.  ii.  17  ;  iv.  14  ;  see  also  Acts  xix.  33,)  wiiirli  implies 
that  the  latter  was  then  also  in  that  city.  4.  Against  tliia 
Alexander,  a  resident  of  Epiiesus,  tliongh  jnst  then  in  Rome^ 
opposing  virnlently  the  persecuted  Paul,  that  apostle  specially 
cautions  Timolliy,  (2  Tim.  iv.  14,  15,)  which  implies  that  Tim- 
olliy  was  even  to  continue  in  Ephesus  after  Alexander  should 
return  tliilher. 

'i'iniotliy  nctually  was  with  Paul  in  these  eastern  parts,  after 
tlieir  release  at  Rome.  The  language,  "  Erastus  abode  at 
Corinth,  but  Trophimus  have  I  left  at  IMiletum  sick,"  implies 
that  the  whole  four  had  recently  been  companions  somewhere 
•in  those  regions,  as  is  allowed  by  Doddridge  in  the  extract 
already  given. 

We  may  here  put  together  some  of  the  incidents  now  proved 
so  as  to  throw  much  light  on  the  proper  date  of  the  placing  of 
Timothy  at  Ephesus.  Paul  and  Timothy,  wilii  probably  oilierSj 
return  from  Rome  to  the  eastern  churches,  visiting  excursivelj' 
among  tliem,  including  Crete,  where  Titus  was  "  left,"  and  not 
forgetting  Pliilippi.  Erastus  and  Trophimus  are  then  in  com- 
pany with  liiem  on  the  shores  of  Asia  Minor.  They  are  in  or 
near  Epiiesus.  Paul  desires  Timothy  to  remain  there  as  the 
head  of  that  church,  and  proceeds  without  him  through  Troas 
to  Macedonia,  spending  a  winter  at  Nicopolis,  in  that  province, 
or  in  Epirus.  From  Macedonia  or  Nicopolis,  he  goes  on  to 
Corinth,  where  Erastus  remains,  that  city  being  his  home. 
(Rom.  xvi.)  Thence  he  sails  to  Ciete,  where  he  leaves  Trophi- 
mus sick  at  Miletus.  And  after  that  he  is  again  at  Rome,  and 
again  a  prisoner,  when  he  writes  the  second  epistle  to  Timothy. 
Let  the  candid  reader  examine  what  has  been  offered  under  this 
third  liead,  and  determine  whether  this  specification  of  some  of 
the  later  travels  of  Paul,  is  not  supported  by  sufficient  scriptural 
evidence,  and  whetiier  we  have  not  here  assigned  the  true  date 
of  the  connexion  of  Timothy  with  the  Epiiesian  church,  as  its 
ecclesiastical  superior. 

Before  proceeding,  've  ask  the  reader's  further  attention  to 
another  and  interesting  proof  that  Timothy  went  eastward, 
and  to  Ephesus,  after  he  and  Paul  were  at  Rome,  and  that 
i\\i'. first  epistle  to  him  was  also  written  at  this  late  date.  AVe 
have  seen  that  Timothy  was  imprisoned  at  Rome,  and  "  set  at 
liberty."*     An  allusion  to  his  trial  on  this  occasion,  is  found  in 

*  W-h.  xiii.  23.  Some  transl.ito  tliis  expression  "  sent  away,"  lliiis  denying:  that 
Timotliy  had  been  a  prisoner  ;  bVit  we  can  find  nothing  to  outwei<Th  the  rendering 
of  our  trniislalors,  "  set  at  liliertv  :"  with  wliich  also  a<fiee  Ueza,  Hammond,  Calmet, 
Doddiid'^e,  and  many  others.  Why  does  Paul  say  to  the  Philippians,  "  I  trust  in 
the  Ivord  Jesus,  to  send  Tiinotheus  Kliorlly  unto  you  7"  (Pl)il.  ii.  19.)  He  sent 
Epaplirodilus,  Init  Timothy  he  only  trusts  or  hopes  to  send,  nsiuf;  llie  same  lan- 
piiage  as  in  reijard  to  leivinj;  Uniw  himself,  "  1  Init^t  in  the  TjOiin,  that  1  myself 
Blmll  come  shortly."  This  mode  of  .■-■peaUiiisr  cnnfirins  the  opinion  that  Timothy 
was.  lilce  the  .Vpostle,  u  prisoner  in  F^om"  at  lli.it  period.  F/fvi|)!iras,  another  com- 
panion of  Paul,  was  also  a  prisoner  with   him   at  Rmne.   (See  Philem.  23.)     So  like 


124  TIMOTHY    AT    EPHESUS. 

the  first  epistle,  (vi.  12,)  '•  and  liast  professed  a  good  profession 
before  many  witnesses."  The  words  "  professed  a  good  profes- 
sion," may  with  equal  i)ropriety  read  "  confessed  a  good  coiifts- 
sion,"  and  tvv  Ka\riv  oitaXoyiav  js  SO  translated  in  tlie  next  verse, 
concerning  Christ.  Sucli  language  at  once  presents  tlie  idea 
that  'J'imotliy  was  a  confessor,  a  term  afterward  applied  to 
those  Christians  who  were  tried  or  severely  dealt  with  by  their 
persecutors,  but  escaped  wilii  life ;  the  name  inartyr  being 
appropriated  to  those  who  suffered  death  in  the  cause  of  their 
reliijion.  In  tills  view  of  Timothy's  sufferings  we  see  the  con- 
nexion between  this  verse  and  tlie  next,  viz.  Timotiiy  confessed 
a  good  confession  before  many  witnesses,  as  the  Saviour  wit- 
nessed a  good  confession  before  Pilate.  This  confession  of 
Timothy  was  of  course  connected  with  his  imprisonment  at 
Rome,  (or  in  Italy,)  for  we  nowhere  read  of  his  being  in  prison, 
or  suffering  peculiar  persecution,  or  any  persecution  in  which 
he  was  so  prominent  as  to  be  a  conspicuous  confessor,  in  any 
other  place.*  This  explanation  of  the  passage  before  us  will, 
.we  think,  bear  investigation.  And  the  result  is,  that  Timothy 
had  been  in  Rome  with  Paul,  and  had  returned  to  the  east,  before 
lie  was  placed  over  the  church  at  Ephesus,  and  before  the  first 
epistle  was  written  to  him. 

To  the  late  date  thus  given  to  the  first  epistle  to  Timothy,  and 
his  being  stationed  in  Ephesus  to  govern  its  church,  "  there  are 
tiiree  plausible  objections,  (says  Macknight,)  which  must  not  be 
overlooked. 

"  1.  It  is  thought  that  il  this  epistle  was  written  after  the 
Apostle's  release,  he  could  not,  with  any  propriety,  have  said  to 


wise  was  Aristarclnis.  (See  Col.  iv.  10.)  And  tliese  cases  of  the  imprisonment  of 
Piitil's  friends  at  tliat  time,  showing  that  such  occurrences  then  took  place,  appea/ 
to  us  to  settle  tlie  translation  of  the  passage  respecting  Timothy,  that  lie  had  been 
"set  at  liberty"  from  prison  or  arrest. 

*  Commentators  dilfer  concerning  the  "profession"  or  "confession"  of  Timothy  ; 
some  making  it  a  baptismal  profession  ;  some,  a  profession  when  he  was  ordained  ; 
some,  a  profession  throughout  his  ministry,  in  tjje  rnidst  of  opposition.  None  of 
these  interpretations,  however,  agree  willi  the  comparing  of  Timothy's  confession  to 
that  of  Christ,  in  the  next  verse.  Hence,  other  authors  refer  it  to  some  Ephesian 
persecution  of  Timothy  ;  but  of  this,  though  much  is  recorded  of  Ephesian  affairs, 
(Acts  xix.)  there  is  no  evidence  whatever.  Arctius  urges  that  it  was  a  confession 
before  heathen  judges,  in  bonds,  and  with  peril  of  life,  "because  the  Apostle  terms  it 
KoXrjv,  a  '  good'  confession,  that  is,  conspicuously  excellent  or  illustrious,  (specio- 
cnni,)  and  attended  with  danger ;  moreover,  because  he  adds  that  tliis  confession  was 
made  before  many  witnesses,  tliat  is,  with  intrepidity,  all  danger  of  life  being  dis- 
regarded." This  author  notices,  likewise,  that  such  were  aflerWv -d  called  "con- 
fessors," and  were  next  in  estimation  to  martyrs.  He  assigns  not  the  time  or  place 
of  this  "confession"  of  Timotiiy ;  but,  as  the  only  time  we  hear  of  his  being  under 
restraint  was  when  he  was  in  Rome  (Italy)  with  Paul,  the  evidence,  all  tliat  we 
have,  favors  our  assertion  that  it  was  then  and  there  that  Timothy  acquired  the 
honor  of  ranking  with  "confessors."  Calmet  aorees  that  Timothy  was  a  "con- 
fessor" at  the  hazard  of  his  life.  Hammond  regards  the  "  confession"  as  a  "  great 
persecution  for  the  faith  of  Christ."  We  may  add,  that  the  margin,  being  one  of 
much  excellence,  of  a  Scotch  edition  of  the  Bible,  refers  from  each  of  the  passages, 
now  under  notice,  to  the  other — from  the  "good  confession"  to  the  "set  at  liberty,' 
and  vice  versa.  1  Tim.  vi.  12  ;  Heb.  xiii.  23. 


TIMOTHY    AT    EPHESUS.  125 

Timntliy  iv.  12,  "  Let  no  man  despise  lliv  yonfh."  But  it  is  re- 
plie:i.  that  Servius  Tullius,  in  classing  the  Uoman  people,  as  Aulus 
Gt'iliiis  rehiles,  (1.  x.  c.  28.)  divided  their  age  i-nto  three  periods. 
Chililhood,  lie  limited  to  the  age  of  sevent'^.en:  youth,  from  that 
Uiforhj-six :  and  old  asre,  from  forty-six  to  the  end  of  life. 
Now,  supposing  Timotliy  to  have  been  18  years  old,  A.  D.  5(), 
when  he  beeame  PaiiTs  assistant,  he  would  be  no  more  than  82, 
A.  D.  64r,  two  years  after  the  Apostle's  release,  when  it  is  siij)- 
posed  this  epistle  was  written.*  Wherefore,  being  then  in  the 
period  of  life  wiiich,  by  the  Greeks  as  well  as  tiie  Romans,  was 
considered  as  youth,  the  Apostle  with  propriety  might  say  to 
him,  •  Let  no  man  despise  thy  youth.' 

'•  2.  It  is  asked.  What  occasion  was  there,  in  an  epistle  written 
after  the  Apostle's  release,  to  give  Timothy  directions  concerning 
the  ordination  of  bishops  and  deacons  in  a  church  where  tiiere 
were  so  many  elders  already?  (Acts  xx.  17.)  The  answer  is, 
the  elders  in  the  year  58  may  have  been  too  few  for  the  church 
at  Epliesns,  in  her  increased  state,  in  the  year  65.  Besides,  false 
teachers  had  then  entered,  to  oppose  whom  more  bishops  and 
deacons  misht  be  needed  than  were  necessary  in  the  year  58. 
Not  to  mention  that  some  of  the  first  elders  having  died,  others 
were  wanted  to  supply  tlieir  places.-'  [The  reader  will  observe 
that  this  argument  of  Dr.  Macknight's  implies  that  elders  or 
pri'sbyter-bishops  were  not  allowed  to  ordain  ;  for  if  they  had 
liad  that  power,  those  already  in  Ephesus  could  have  ordained 
as  many  as  the  growing  clfuKch  required  :  nor  would  Timothy's 
staying  there  to  ordain  have  secured  a  majority  of  sound  minis- 
ters ;  for  tlie  nnsound  elders,  if  they  could  have  ordained,  might 
have  added  to  their  numbers  as  fast  as  they  pleased,  and  so  have 
defeated  this  object.  Dr.  Mackuight  was  an  eminent  Presbyte- 
rian divi-.ie.] 

"3.  Because  the  Apostle  wrote  to  Timothy  that  he  '  hoped  to 
come  to  him  soon,'  (1  Tim.  iii.  14.)  it  is  argued,  that  the  letter  in 
which  tills  is  said,  mu.st  have  been  written  before  he  said  to  the 
Ephesian  elders,  (Acts  xx.  25,)  '  I  know  that  all  ye,  among  whom 
I  have  gone  preaching  the  kingdom  of  God,  shall  see  my  face  no 

more.'      But as  it  was  no  point  of  either  faith  or  practice 

which  he  spake,  he  may  well  be  supposed  to  liavs  declared 
notiiing  but  his  own  opinion,  resulting  from  his  fears.  He  had 
lately  escaped  the  rage  of  the  Jews,  who  laid  wait  for  liini  in 
Cenclirea,  to  kill  him.  (Acts  xx.  3.)  This,  with  tlieir  fury  on 
former  occasions,  [see  also  Acts  xx.  22,  23,  24,]  filled  him  with 
?uch  anxiety,  that  in  writing  to  the  Romans  from  Corinth,  he 

♦  Dr.  Mackni?:!it's  chronnlog-y  difTers  from  thr\t  of  Bishop  liloyd,  tlio  one  usually 
xloptcd,  in  tliat  llie  foiiner  calcnliites  the  "fi.urteen  vear.s  after,"  (Gal.  ii.  I,)  from 
h"  conversion  of  I'aul,  instead  of  his  first  visi  to  .IcrnsaliMn,  three  years  later,  (Gal 
i.  18.)  According  to  Bishop  Lloyd,  Timothy  became  Paul's  as.sistant,  A.  D.  K., 
(Acu  xvi.  3,)  and  the  first  epistle  to  him  was  written.  A,  D.  65.  If  TiuioUiy  was  18 
years  old  at  the  first  dale,  he  was  30  at  Ihe  second  ;  or  if  21  at  the  first,  he  was  33  at 
the  M  ond.  Tlii--  latter  age  i.s  but  voiitli,  in  iiii>:;t  men. 
i  1  ■ 


126  TIMOTHY   AT    EPHESUS. 

requested  them  to  'strive  together  with  liim  in  their  prayers,  that 
he  might  be  delivered  from  the  unbelieving  in  Judea,'  (Rom. 
XV.  3U,  31.)  Further,  that  in  his  speech  to  llie  Ephesian  elders, 
tlie  Apostle  only  declared  his  ovvn  persuasion,  dictated  by  his 
fears,  and  not  any  suo;gestion  of  the  Spirit,  I  think  plain  from 
what  he  had  said  immediately  before — '  Behold,  I  go  bound  in 
the  spirit  to  Jerusalem,  nol  knowing  ihe  things  wliicii  siiail  befall 
me  tiiere ;  save  that  the  Holy  Ghost  witnesselh  in  every  cily, 
saying,  tliat  bonds  and  affliclions  abide  me.'  Wherefore,  al- 
thongli  Ills  fears  were  happily  disappointed,  and  he  actually 
visited  the  Ephesians  after  his  release,  his  character  as  an  in- 
spired apostle  is  noi  hurt  in  the  least,  if,  in  saying  '  he  knew  they 
should  see  his  face  no  more,'  lie  declared,  as  I  have  said,  his  own 
persuasion  only,  and  no  dictate  of  tiie  Holy  Ghost."  Mackiiight, 
IV.  p.  160. 

In  regard  to  this  latter  objection,  that  Paul  was  to  see  the 
elders  of  Ephesus  no  more,  it  is  further  to  be  remarked  that  lie 
may  have  never  seen  them  again,  or  have  been  in  Ephesus  itself, 
although  he  visited  other  eastern  churches,  and  other  parts  of 
the  ^gean  coasts.  He  may,  when  he  "was  going  into  Mace- 
donia," have  been  in  a  vessel  which  but  touched  at  Ephesus; 
and  so  have  left  Timothy  there,  while  he  contmued  his  voyage. 
Or,  Timothy  may,  at  that  time,  have  been  at  Ephesus,  and  re- 
joined him  in  those  parts,  when  Paul  requested  him  to  "  abide" 
there  "still."  Or,  witiiout  Tinujthy's  thus  rejoining  him,  Paul 
may  have  despatched  a  messenger  or  a  letter  to  him,  beseeching 
liim  to  continue  in  that  city  ;  the  first  epistle  being  afterward 
sent,  as  his  full  credentials  in  his  high  office.  That  Paul  and 
Timothy  revisited  those  regions  afler  being  in  Rome,  lias,  we 
think,  been  abundantly  shown  ;  and  either  of  the  above  suppo- 
sitions, each  of  them  being  perfectly  natural,  will  meet  the 
objection  that  Paul  was  to  see  the  Ephesian  elders  no  more. 
Doddridge,  on  this  passage,  observes  —  "I  conclude  that  the 
Apostle  had  received  some  particular  revelation,  thai,  if  he  should 
ever  return  to  these  parts  of  Asia  again,  (as  from  Philem.  22,  I 
tliink  it  probable  he  might,)  yet  that  he  should  nol  have  an  op- 
portunity of  call'Mg  at  Ephesus,  or  of  seeing  the  ministers  whom 
he  now  addressed." 

As  on  the  one  hand  there  is  good  authority  for  interpreting 
the  above  declaration  of  Paul,  (that  he  knew  he  would  see  tliose 
elders  no  more,)  as  being  the  mere  suggestion  of  his  apprehen- 
sions, (see  Macknight,  Hammond,  Poole's  Synopsis  anu  Poole's 
Annot.)  it  is  perfectly  fair  to  suppose  that  both  he  and  Timothy 
were  new  again  in  Ephesus,  when  he  besought  him  to  abide 
there  as  the  head  of  its  ciiurch.  But  if  it  be  alleged,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  this  impression  of  Paul  was  prophetic  and 
inspired,  it  is  sufficient  to  say  tliat  he  met  Timothy  or  sent  him 
a  message,  while  somewhere  near  Ephesus,  on  his  way  to 
Macedonia,  when,  at  the  late  period  mentioned,  he  made  this 
request  of  him. 


TIMOTHY   AT   EPHESU9.  127 

"SVe  shall  add  one  more  valuable  extract  from  Macknight. 
(IV.  157.) 

"When  thev Apostle  wrote  his  first  epistle  to  Timothy,  'he 
hoped  to  come  to  liiin  soon.^  (iii.  14.)  But  from  llie  history  of 
tlie  Acts,  it  is  certain  that  in  no  letter  written  to  Timothy  after 
tiie  riot,  till  his  fir.st  confinement  in  Rome,  could  the  Apostle 
say  tiiat  lie  hoped  to  '  come  to  him  soon.'  He  could  not  say  so 
in  any  letter  written  from  Troas.  the  first  place  he  slopped  at 
afier  "leaving  Ephesus  :  for  at  that  time  lie  was  going  into 
INIacedonia  and  Acliaia  to  receive  the  collections  [for  the  poor 
hrelhren  in  Jerusalem]  from  the  churches  in  these  provinces. 
[Acts  XX.  1  ;  1  Cor.  xvi.  3,  4,  5.]  Neither  could  he  say  so  after 
writing  his  second  to  the  Corinthians,  from  Macedonia:  for  in 
tliai  epistle  he  told  the  Corinthians  lie  was  coming  to  them  with 
the  Macedonian  brethren,  who  were  commissioned  to  attend 
him  in  his  voyage  to  Jerusalem  with  the  collections,  (2  Cor. 
xi.  4,)  and  that  he  meant  to  sail  directly  from  Corinth  to  Judea. 
(2  Cor.  i.  16.)  [See  also  Rom.  xv.  25,  26,  written  at  Coriniii.] 
As  little  could  he  write  to  Timothy,  that  he  '  hoped  to  come  to 
him  soon,'  when  he  altered  his  resolution  on  occasion  of  the 
lying  in  wait  of  the  Jews,  and  returned  into  Macedonia;  (Acts 
XX.  3:)  for  he  was  then  in  such  haste  to  be  at  Jerusalem  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  that  when  he  came  to  Miletus,  instead  of 
going  to  Ephesus,  he  sent  for  the  elders  of  that  church  to  come 
to  him.  (Acts  XX.  16,  17.)  When  he  arrived  in  Judea  he  could 
not  write  that  he  '  hoped  to  come  to  Ephesus  soon  :'  for  he 
was  imprisoned  a  few  days  after  he  went  up  to  Jerusalem. 
And  having  continued  two  years  in  prison  at  CfBsarea,  he  was 
sent  bound  to  Rome,  where  likewise  being  confined,  he  could 
not,  till  toward  the  conclusion  of  thai  confinement,  write  to 
'i'imothy  that  he  '  hoped  to  come  to  him  soon.'  And  even  then 
he  did  not  write  his  first  epistle  to  Timothy:  for  Timothy 
was  with  him  at  the  conclusion  of  his  confinement.  (Philip, 
ii.  in- 23.)" 

We  feel  confident  that  no  ingenuity  can  overturn  the  mass  of 
argument  now  adduced.  And  we  therefore  do  not  hesitate  to 
answer  finally  the  question,  When  did  Paul  place  Timothy  over 
the  church  at  Ephesus?  He  did  so  when  they  both  were  among 
the  eastern  churches  after  his  first  imprisonment  in  Rome,  and 
not  before,  the  date  being  A.  D.  65,  according  to  Bishop  Lloyd's 
chronology.* 

At  that  time  there  was  a  body  of  clergy  in  Ephesus,  for  there 
had  been  five  years  or  more  previously,  (Acts  xx.  17;)  and 
over  these  Timothy  was  placed  as  the  supreme  officer,  soon 
afterward  called  a  bishop.  It  matters  little  indeed  in  reference 
to  the  p]piscopal  argument  whether  Tiinolny  found  clergy  in 


•  Ofrriixl'Tn  aiitlioritirK,  besiilpsM:itkniglit, — T.  Scolt,  A.  Cl!irl<r>, Hisliop  ToiiiIiMC, 
O.  Tinviisiiid,  ;inii  T.  H;utwll  lloini',  ivrrce  tli.it  tiii;  il.iti;  of  lliis  I'piwtle  was  a/ier 
Paul's  first  iinprisuiunent  in  Koine,  and  about  the  year  we  liave  assigned. 


128  TIMOTHY   AT   EPHESUS. 

Ephesns,  when  he  took  charge  of  the  church  with  the  power  of 
ordaining  and  governing;  or  whether  there  were  none  there  as 
yet,  and  lie  was  to  ordain  all  that  were  required.  In  either  case 
he  wonld  have  the  ordaining  power,  such  as  the  apostles  Jiad, 
and  such  as  presliyters  (alone)  are  nowhere  in  Scripture  said 
to  possess.  As,  however,  the  truth  is  that  there  were  clergy 
("  teachers")  in  Epliesus  when  Timothy  was  placed  there,  we 
have  deemed  it  proper  in  the  present  article  to  illusirale  and 
confirm  this  only  sound  view  of  the  subject. 

We  again,  therefore,  desire  the  reader  to  compare  St.  Paul's 
address  to  the  elders  of  Ephesus,  (Acts  xx.  18-35,)  with  the 
epislles  to  Timothy,  when  afterward  placed  over  them  as  their 
bishop.  While  the  elders  had  no  bishop,  noliiing  was  hinted  of 
any  ordaining  or  supreme  clerical  power  in  Ephesus.  When, 
however,  a  bishop  was  afterward  resident  with  them,  those 
powers  are  fully  recognised  as  existing  there  in  the  person  of 
Timothy  :  he  is  to  "  lay  on  hands  ;"  he  is  to  '•  receive  accusations 
against  elders;"  he  is  to  "charge  them  to  teach  no  false  doc- 
trine;" "this  charge  I  commit  unto  thee,  son  Timothy."  The 
elders  are  never  once  mentioned  as  having  these  rights,  or  as 
sharing  them.  If  our  opponents  say  that  he  superseded  the 
elders  for  a  time,  we  first  ask  the  proof  that  the  latter  had  such 
powers  before  he  came  among  them;  we  next  ask  the  proof  that 
they  resumed  such  powers  on  his  relinquishing  that  church,  if 
he  ever  did:  but  no  proof  can  be  found  for  either  of  these 
points.  Why  should  there  not  be  scriptural  evidence  for  Pres- 
byterian ordination,  and  that  evidence  as  strong  and  as  clear  as 
for  the  (so  called)  evangelical  right  of  ordination  existing  in 
Timothy  ?  How  is  it,  if  evangelical  ordination  (so  called)  was 
but  temporary,  while  Presbyterian  ordination  was  lo  be  perma- 
nent, tliat  the  former  stands  broadly  and  for  ever  on  record, 
while  the  latter  has  not  one  particle  of  proof  positive  in  the  New 
Testament? 
The  Episcopal  solution  of  these  questions  is  the  only  sound  one. 

1.  Ordination  did  not  belong  to  evangehsts  merely  as  such,  but 
to  ministers  of  a  fixed  grade  superior  to  elders  or  presbyters. 

2.  Ordination  by  these  superior  officers  was  not  to  be  tempo- 
rary, but  permanent ;  and  therefore  this  right,  as  possessed  by 
such  officers,  of  apostolical  or  Episcopal  rank,  stands  broadly 
and  for  ever  on  record.  3.  Ordination  by  inferior  clergymen 
was  never  designed  by  Christ  or  the  Apostles;  and  therefore 
the  New  Testament  affords  it  not  a  particle  of  proof  positive. 
So  clear  is  the  Episcopal  interpretation  and  view  of  these  parts 
of  Scripture. 

And  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  chief  officer  and  the  elders 
of  the  same  church  are  thus  set  in  contrast.  Had  indeed  the 
address  of  Paul  been  to  the  elders  of  Antioch  or  Philippi,  of 
Ponlus  or  lllyricum,  while  the  epistles  were  to  Timothy  in 
Ephesus,  our  argument  would  have  been  strong  enough  ;  as 
showing  that  the  office  of  the  latter  was  superior  to  tlial  of  the 


TIMOTHY    AT    EPHESU3.  129 

former.  But  as  both  belonged  to  the  one  church  of  Ephesus, 
we  liave  tlie  stronger  argument,  that  that  identical  officer  Timo- 
thy, was  siiperior  to  tiiat  identical  liody  of  elders,  and  exercised 
his  powers  over  the  very  clmrcii  to  which  they  belonged. 

In  the  full  enjoyment  of  these  powers,  ordaining  and  supreme 
government,  and  fixed  at  Ephesus,  with  the  exception  of  a  visit 
to  the  venerable  Paul  when  expecting  martyrdom,  the  holy 
record  completes  its  notice  of  Timothy,  his  eminent  and  most 
beloved  son  in  the  Gospel.  The  functions  of  the  apostles  and 
of  tiieir  first  Episcopal  brethren  were  sometimes  diocesan  and 
sometimes  excursive  ;  a  bishop  may  perform  Episcopal  duly 
either  way.  Timothy  appears  to  have  often  performed  excur- 
sive Episcopal  offices.  But,  from  the  tone  of  the  two  epistles, 
from  the  cliarge  to  him  to  oppose  false  teachers,  while  it  yet 
is  intimated  that'  false  teaching  would  continue  even  to  the 
"  latter  times," — from  the  warning  given  him  respecting  Alexan- 
der when  he  should  return  from  Kome  to  fyphesus, — from  tiie 
admonition  to  be  faithful  in  his  trust  "till  the  appearing  of 
Christ,"  i.  e.  till  Timothy's  own  death, — from  the  intimation  that 
his  functions  were  to  continue  should  Paul  "tarry  long,"  and 
its  not  being  revoked  in  the  second  epistle,  when  lie  fully 
expected  martyrdom, — from  all  these  considerations,  added  to 
Paul's  original  request  that  he  would  remain  indefinitely  at 
Ephesus,  we  conclude,  that  from  the  time  of  that  request,  and 
when  Scripture  takes  its  leave  of  him,  he  was  the  diocesan 
bishop  of  tlie  church  in  that  city. 

H.  U.  O. 


From  the  Quarterly  Chrislian  Spectator. 

R  E  V  I  E  W. 


Answer  to  a  Review  (in  the  Quarterly  Christian  S-pectaiyi)  cf 
"Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture;"  Jirst  published  in  the  Protestant 
Episcopalian  for  May,  1834.  Philadelphia:  Jesper  Harding.  1834. 
pp.  19. 

When  the  review  of  the  tract,  "  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scrip- 
ture," was  prepared,*  it  was  not  our  design  tOk engage  in  a  con- 
troversy on  the  subject  tliere  discussed.  We  well  knew  how 
unprofitable  and  how  endless  such  a  controversy  might  become; 
and  we  felt  that  we  had  more  important  business  to  engage  our 
attention,  than  that  of  endeavoring  to  defend  tiie  external  order 
of  the  Chiu'ch.  The  subject  attracted  our  notice,  because,  on 
two  different  occasions,  the  tract  which  was  the  subject  of  the 
review,  iiad  been  sent  to  us,  in  one  instance  accompanied  with  a 
polite  request, — evidently  from  an  Episcopalian, — to  give  to  it 
our  particular  attention ;  because,  too,  the  tract  had  been  pub- 
lished at  the  "Episcopal  Press,"  and  it  was  known  that  it  would 
be  extensively  circulated;  because  it  had  been  the  subject  of-no 
small  self-gratulation  among  the  Episcopalians,  and  had  been 
suffered,  notwithstanding  the  manifest  complacency  with  which 
they  regarded  it,  to  lie  unanswered  ;  but  mainiy,  because  it  made 
an  appeal  at  once  to  the  Bible,  and  professed  a  willingness  that 
tlie  question  should  be  settled  by  the  aiUhority  of  tiie  Scriptures 
alone.  This  appeared  to  us  to  be  placing  tiie  subject  on  new 
ground.  The  first  emotion  produced  by  the  title  of  the  tract 
was  one  of  surprise.  VV'e  iiad  been  so  accustomed  lo  regard  this 
controversy  as  one  that  was  to  be  settled  solely  by  the  authority 
of  the  fathers;  we  had  been  so  disheartened,  and  sickened  by 
the  unprofitable  nattu-e,  the  interminable  duration,  and  the  want 
of  fixed  bounds  and  principles,  in  that  investigation  ;  we  had 
seen  so  little  reference  made  to  the  Bible,  on  either  side  of  the 
question,  that  it  excited  in  us  no  small  degree  of  surprise  to 
learn,  tliat  a  bishop  of  the  Episcopal  Cliurch  should  be  willing 
to  make  a  direct,  decisive,  and  unqualified  appeal  to  the  New 
Tesiament.  It  was  so  unusual;  it  gave  so  new  a  direction  to 
the  controversy  ;  it  promised  so  speedy  an  issue,  and  one  so 
little  auspicious  to  the  cause  which  the  bishop  was  engaged  in 
defending,  that  we  were  not  unwilling  to  turn  aside  from  onr 
usual  engagements,  and  to  examine  the  proofs  adduced  in  this 
somewhat  novel  mode  of  the  Episcopal  controversy. 


Christi-  1  Spectator,  vol.  vi. 

(  130  ) 


REVIEW — ANSWER    TO   A   REVIEW,    ETC.  131 

Shortly  after  our  review  was  published,  an  "Answer"  to  tiie 
anicle  appeared  in  the  "Protestant  Episcopalian,"  understood 
to  come  from  tiie  author  of  tlie  Tract.  Willi  a  copj'  of  this,  the 
writer  of  liie  review  was  politely  furnished  hy  Dr.  Onderdonk. 
Tiie  "Answer"  is  marked  with  the  same  general  characteristics 
as  the  Tract  itself.  It  evinces,  in  general,  the  same  spirit  of 
Christian  feeling,  and  of  candid  inquiry;  the  same  calm,  col- 
lected, and  manly  style  of  argument;  the  same  familiarity  with 
the  subject;  and' the'  same  habit, — by  no  means  as  common  as 
is  desirable, — of  applying  the  princii)les  of  the  inductive  philo- 
sophy to  moral  subjects.  To  this  general  statement,  perhaps, 
should  be  made  a  slight  exception.  "  A  candid  observer  possibly 
would  discern  in  the  "Answer"  some  marks  of  haste,  and  some 
indications  of  disturbed  repose,— possibly  of  a  slight  seiisntinn 
in  perceiving  that  the  material  point  of  the  argument  in  the 
Tract,  had  not  been  as  strongly  fortified  as  was  indispensable. 
As  instances  of  this  sensation,  we  might  notice  the  train  of 
remarks  in  pp.  8,  9,  and  especially  in  the  following  expressions: 
"The  reasonings  throughout  his  article,"  (the  reviewer's,)  "are 
much  the  same  as  those  usually  brought  against  Ejjiscopacy  ; 
Hod  where  they  are  not  the  same,  they  are  so  much  minus  the 
former  ground,"  &c.  "No  one,  for  three  years,  brouglit  these 
old  reasonings  against  the  Tract — no  one,  till  the  reviewer  fancied 
he  had  disctn-ered  a  weak  spot  in  it.  and  might,  therefore,  re- 
produce some  of  them  witii  effect."  "The  present  is  only  a 
start  in  its  slumber."  And  again,  on  page  15,  the  author  of  the 
reply  speaks  of  the  reviewer  as  one  whom  he  suspects  "to  be  a 
new  corner  into  this  field  of  controversy,"  if  not  with  the  inten- 
tion, at  least  with  the  appearance,  of  designing  to  disparage  the 
force  of  the  arguments  which  the  reviewer  had  urged.  Now,  it 
is  unnecessary  for  us  to  remind  Dr.  Onderdonk,  that  the  inquiry 
is  not,  whether  tlie  arsruments  are  old  or  new,  but  whether  they 
are  pertinent  and  valid.  Nor  is  the  question,  whether  one  is  a 
"  new  comer"  into  this  controversy.  Arguments  may  not  be  tlie 
less  cogent  and  unanswerable,  for  being  urged  by  one  who  has 
not  before  entered  the  lists;  nor  will  arguments  from  the  Bible 
be  satisfactorily  met  by  an  affirmation  that  they  are  urged  by 
one  unknown  in  the  field  of  debate.  It  may  be  proper,  however, 
for  us  to  observe,  in  self-vindication,  that  the  arguments  which 
we  urged  were  drawn  from  no  other  book  than  the  Bible.  The 
"  Traci"  and  the  New  Testament  were  the  only  books  before  us 
in  the  preparation  of  the  article.  The  course  of  argument  sug- 
gested was  that  only  which  was  producec  by  the  invcsii<>ation 
of  the  Scriptures.  Whether  we  have  fallen  into  any  train  of 
thinking  which  has  been  before  urged  by  writers  on  this  sub- 
ject, we  do  not  even  now  know,  nor  are  we  likely  to  know;  as 
it  is  our  fixed  purpose  not  to  travel  out  of  the  record  before  us, 
— tlin  inspired  account  of  the  matter  in  the  sacred  Scriptures. 
If,  Iu)wever,  the  arguments  which  we  have  uryed,  be  "the  same 
with  those  which  are  usually  brought  against  Episcopacy,"  (p.  8,) 


133  REVIEW — ANSWER  TO   A   REVIEW   OP 

it  furnishes  a  case  of  coincidence  of  results,  in  investigating  the 
New  Testament,  which  is  itself  some  evidence  that  the  objec- 
tions to  Episcopacy  are  such  as  obviously  occur  to  different 
minds,  engaged  in  independent  investigation. 

When  the  reply  appeared,  it  became  a  question  Avith  us 
whether  the  controversy  should  be  prolonged.  A  perusal  of  the 
"  Answer"  did  not  suggest  any  necessity  for  departing  from  our 
origiual  intention,  not  to  engage  in  such  a  controversy.  It  did 
not  appear  to  furnish  any  new  argument,  which  seemed  to  call 
for  notice,  or  to  invalidate  any  of  the  positions  defended  in  the 
review.  Almost  the  whole  of  the  "  Answer"  appeared  to  be 
simply  an  expansion  of  a  note  in  the  Tract,  (p.  12,  note  z,)  which, 
when  the  review  was  prepared,  seemed  not  to  furnish  an  argu- 
ment tliat  required  particular  attention.  The  fact,  too,  that  then 
the  argument  was  expressed  in  a  note,  in  small  type^  and  at  the 
bottom  of  the  page,  was  an  indication  tiiat  it  was  not  of  much 
maguilude  in  the  eye  of  the  author  of  the  Tract  himself  Why 
it  is  now  expanded,  so  as  to  constitute  the  very  body  and 
essence  of  the  reply,  is  to  us  proof,  that  the  subject,  on  the 
Episcopal  side,  is  exhausted.  This  fact  is  of  such  a  nature,  as 
to  impress  the  mind  strongly  with  the  belief,  that  henceforth 
nothing  remains  to  be  added,  in  the  effort  to  '' test  Episcopacy 
by  Scripture." 

In  departing  from  our  original  purpose,  it  is  our  wish  to 
reciprocate  the  kind  feeling  and  candor  of  the  author  of  the 
"Tract,"  and  of  the  "Answer."  Truth,  not  victory,  is  our 
object.  W^e  have  but  one  wish  on  this  subject.  It  is,  that  the 
principles  upon  which  God  designed  to  establish  and  govern  his 
holy  Cliurch,  may  be  developed  and  understood.  We  resume 
the  subject  with  profound  and  undiminished  respect  for  the 
talents,  the  piety,  and  the  learning  of  the  author  of  the  Tract 
and  Answer;  and  with  a  purpose  that  this  shall  he  final,  on  our 
part,  unless  something  new,  and  vital  to  the  subject,  shall  be 
added.  In  this,  as  well  as  in  all  other  things,  our  desire  is,  not  to 
write  one  line,  which,  dying, — or  in  heaven, 

— we  would  wish  to  blot. 

Still,  this  desire,  so  deeply  cherished,  does  not  forbid  a  full  and 
free  examination  of  arguments.  Our  conscientious  belief  is,  that 
the  superiority  "  in  ministerial  power  and  rights,"  (Tract,  p.  15,) 
claimed  by  Episcopal  bishops,  is  a  superiority  known  in  the 
Episcopal  churches  only,  and  not  in  the  New  Testament ;  and 
this  we  purpose  to  show. 

In  entering  upon  our  examination  of  the  "Answer,"  we  may 
remark,  that  the  scriptural  argument  for  Episcopacy  is  now 
fairlv  and  entirely  before  the  world.  On  the  Episcopal  side, 
nothing  material  to  be  said,  can  remair.  The  whole  argument 
is  in  the  Tract,  and  in  the  Answer.  If  Episcopacy  is  not  estab- 
.ished  in  these,  we  may  infer  that  it  is  not  in  the  Bible.  If  not 
in  the  Bible,  it  is  not  "necessarily  binding."  (Tract,  p.  3.)    To  this 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY   SCHIPTDRE.  133 

conclusion, — that  the  whole  of  the  material  part  of  the  scriptural 
ar<TuiiieiU  is  before  the  world,  in  these  pamphlets, — we  are  con- 
ducted by  tlie  fact  that  neither  talent,  learning,  zeal,  nor  time, 
have  been  wanting,  in  order  to  present  it;  tiiat  their  antlior  en- 
tered on  the  discussion,  manifestly  acquainted  with  all  tiiat  was 
to  be  said  ;  that  tlie  subject  has  now  been  before  the  public  more 
than  four  years;  (see  advertisement  to  the  Tract;)  and  that, 
duiina  that  time,  it  is  to  be  presumed,  if  there  had  been  any  more 
material  statements  to  be  presented  from  the  Bible,  they  would 
have  appeared  in  the  ''Answer."  Tliere  is  much  advantage  in 
examining  an  argument,  with  the  conviction,  that  nothing  more 
remains  to  be  said  ;  and  that  we  may,  therefore,  contemplate  it 
as  an  imbroi<en  and  unimproveable  wliole,  without  the  possibility 
of  any  addition  to  the  number  of  the  arguments,  or  increase  of 
their  strength.  On  this  vantage-ground  we  now  stand,  to  con- 
teinphite  the  argument  in  support  of  the  stupendous  fabric  of 
Episcopacy  in  the  Cliristian  Church. 

In  entering  upon  this  examination,  we  are  struck  with — what 
we  had  indeed  anticiiuited, — a  very  strong  inclination,  on  the 
part  of  the  author  of  tlie  Tract,  to  appeal  again  to  certain  "  ex- 
traneous"' authorities,  of  which  we  heard  nothing  in  tlie  Tract 
itself,  exce[)t  to  disclaim  them.  The  Tract  commenced  with 
the  bold  and  startling  announcement,  that  if  Episcopacy  has  not 
liie  authority  of  Scripture,  it  is  not  "  necessarily  binding."  p.  3. 
'■  No  argument,"  the  Tract  goes  on  to  say,  "  is  worth  taking  into 
the  account,  that  has  not  a  palpable  bearing  on  the  clear  and 
naked  topic, — the  scriptural  evidence  of  Episcopacy."  p.  3.  We 
have  italicised  a  part  of  this  quotation,  to  call  tiie  attention  of 
our  readers  particularly  to  it.  The  afRrmation,  so  unusual  in 
the  mouth  of  an  Episcopalian,  is,  that  no  argument  is  wop>th 
TAKING  INTO  THE  ACCOUNT,  that  docs  not  bear  on  the  scriptural 
prouf.  Now  we  anticipated  that  if  a  reply  was  made  to  our 
review,  from  any  quarter,  we  should  find  a  qualification  of  this 
statemen*,  and  a  much  more  complacent  regard  shown  to  the 
fathers,  and  to  other  '■'•  extraneous  CDnsideralions,^^  (Tract,  p.  4,) 
than  would  be  consistent  with  this  unqualified  disclaimer  in  the 
'IVact.  The  truth  is,  that  the  fathers  are  regarded  as  too  material 
witnesses,  to  be  so  readily  abandoned.  Tlie  '  tradition  of  the 
elders,'  has  been  too  long  pressed  into  the  service  of  the  Epis- 
copacy ;  there  has  been  too  conscious  a  sense  of  the  weakness 
of  the  scriptural  proof,  to  renounce  heartily,  entirely,  and  for 
ever,  all  reliance  on  other  proof  than  the  New  Testament.  The 
''  Answer"  would  have  lacked  a  very  material  feature  which  we 
expected  to  find  in  it,  if  tliere  had  been  no  inclii  uion  manifested  • 
to  plunge  into  this  abyss  of  traditional  history  wliere  light  and 
darkness  stru22le  together,  and  no  wish  to  recall  the  testimony 
of  uiiiiis[)ired  antiquity,  to  the  service  of  prelacy.  Accordingly, 
we  were  prepared  for  the  fctllowing  declaration,  which  we  quote 
entire,  from  pp.  3  and  4,  of  the  Answer  : — 

"  Because  the  author  of  the  Tract  rested  the  claims  of  Episco- 
12 


134  REVIEW — ANSWER   TO   A   REVIEW   OF 

pacy  finally  on  Soripture — because  he  fills  a  high  office  in  the 
Clmrcl) — and  because  tiie  Tract  is  issued  by  so  prominent  an 
Episcopal  iiislitnlion  as  the  '  Press,'  the  reviewer  seems  to  think 
that  l^piscopalians  are  now  to  abandon  all  arcriimenls  not  drawn 
directly  from  the  holy  volume.  Not  at  all.  'J"he  anlhor  of  the 
'J'ract,  in  his  sermon  at  the  consecration  of  the  four  bisiiops,  in 
October,  1832,  advocated  Episcopacy,  besides  on  other  grounds, 
on  that  of  there  being  several  grades  of  office  in  the  priesthoods  of 
all  religions,  false  as  well  as  true,  and  in  all  civil  magistracies  and 
other  official  structures, — and,  in  his  late  Charge,  he  adverted  to 
the  evidence  in  its  fcv-vor  contained  in  the  fathers.  And  the 
'Press,'  at  the  time  it  issued  the  'J'ract,  issued  also  with  it,  in  the 
'WorivS  on  Episcopacy,'  those  of  Dr.  Bowden  and  Dr.  Cooke; 
wliich  embrace  the  argument  at  large.  There  is  no  reason, 
therefore,  for  thinking,  that,  however  a  single  writer  may  use 
selected  arguments  in  a  single  publication,  either  lie  or  other 
Episcopalians  will  (or  should)  narrow  the  ground  they  have 
usually  occupied.  The  fathers  are  consulted  on  tliis  subject, 
because  the  fabric  of  the  ministry  which  they  describe  forms  an 
liistorical  basis  for  interpreting  Scripture.  And  general  practice, 
in  regard  to  distinct  grades  among  officers,  throws  a  heavier 
burden  of  disproof  on  those  whose  interpretations  are  adverse  to 
Episcopacy:  this  latter  topic  we  shall  again  notice  before  we 
close." 

This  passage,  so  far  from  insistins,  as  the  Tract  liad  done,  that 
no  argument  was  worth  inking'  into  the  account,  except  the 
scriptural  proof,  refers  distinctly  to  the  following  points,  which 
we  beg  leave  to  call  '■'■  extraneoits  considerations,^''  as  proof  of 
Episcopacy.  (1.)  The  fact,  that  there  "are  several  grades  of 
office  in  the  priesthood  of  all  religions;"  (2.)  That  the  same 
thing  occurs  "in  all  civil  magistracies,  and  other  official  struc- 
tures;" (3.)  The  evidence  of  the  fathers;  and,  (4)  "Other 
groimds,''  which  the  atitlior  informs  us  he  liad  insisted  on  in  an 
ordination  sermon,  in  1832.  And  in  this  very  passage,  he  makes 
the  following  remarkable  statement,  which  we  propose  soon  to 
notice  furtiier, — "  The  fathers  are  consulted  on  the  subject,  be- 
caMse  the  fabric  of  the  ministry  which  they  describe,  forms  an 
historical  basis  for  interpreting  Scripture." 

Slight  circumstances  often  show  strong  inclinations  and  habits 
of  mind.  How  strong  a  hold  this  reference  to  other  "consider- 
ations" than  the  Scriptures,  has  taken  upon  the  mind  of  the 
author  of  the  Tract,  and  how  reluctant  he  was  to  part  with  the 
*'  extraneous"  argument  from  the  fathers,  is  shown  by  the  fact, 
that  he  again  recurs  to  it  in  the  "Answer,"  and  presents  it  at 
much  greater  length.  Thus  on  pp.  18,  19,  at  the  verj^  close  of 
the  Answer,  we  are  presented  with  the  following  ivciirrence  to 
the  argument  from  other  considerations  than  the  Scriptures: — 

"  One  word  more  concerning  the  'burden  of  proof,'  as  con- 
trasted witli  the  '  presumptive  argument.'  The  Tract  claimed 
no  presumption  in  its  favor  in  seeking  for  the  scriptural  proofs 


EPI3C0PACY    TESTED   BY    SCUirTURE.  135 

of  Episcopacy.    We  do  —  a  presumption  founded  on  common 
sen.'ie,  as  indicated  by  common  practice.     Set  aside  parity  and 
Ki)iscoi)acy,  and  tlicn  look  at  other  itijsleins  of  office,  both  religious 
and    civil,   and    yon   find  several  grades  ol"  oliicers.      In  tiie 
Patriarchal  Church,  lliere  was  tlie  distinction  of    '  high  priest' 
and  'priest.'     In  the  Jewish  Church,  (common  sense  being,  in 
tliis  case   unquestionably,  divinely  approved,)  there  were  the 
high-priest,  priests,  and  Leviles.     Among  Pagans  and  Maliomed- 
aiis,  tiiere  are  various  grades  in  the  office  deemed  sacred,     ("ivil 
governments  have  usually  governors,  a  president,  princes,  a  king, 
an  eniperor,  v^c,  as  the  heads  of  the  general,  or  slate,  or  provin- 
cial magistracies.     In  armies  and  navies,  there  is  always  a  chief. 
Jf  tlie  reviewer  should  claim  exceptions,  we  reply,  they  are  ex- 
ceptions onl\^,  and  very  few  in  number.     The  general  ride  is 
with  ns.     Tiiat  general  rule,  next  to  universal,  is,  that  among 
officers,  there  is  a  difference  of  power,  of  rights,  of  rank,  of  grade, 
call  it  wiiat  you  will.    And  this  general  rule  gives  a  presumption 
that  such  will  also  be  the  case  in  the  Christian  Chiu'ch.     We  go 
to  Scripture,  then,  with  the  presumptive  argument  fully  against 
jiarity.     If  we   should  find   in  Scripture   neitlier  imparity  nor 
fiarit}',  still  common  sense  decides  for  the  former.     If  we  find 
the  lone  of  Scripture  doubtful,  on  this  point,  imparity  has  the 
advaniMge,  common  sense  tiu'ning   the  scale.     If  we  find  there 
intimations,  less  than  positive  injunctions,  in  favor  of  imparity, 
common  sense,  besides  the  respect  due  to  Scripture,  decides  for 
our   interpretation  of  them.     And  if  any  thing  in  Scripture  is 
supposed  to  prove  or  to  justify  parity,  it  must  be  very  explieit, 
to  overturn  the  suggestion  of  common  sense.     The  '  presiunp- 
tive   argument,'   then,   is   clearly  with  ?(s,  and  the  'burden  of 
proof  lies  on  parity.     Let  the  reviewer  peruse  the  Tract  again, 
bearing  in  mind  the  principles  laid  down  in  this  paragraph,  and 
he  will,  we  trust,  think  belter  of  it." 

These  observations,  it  will  be  remembered,  are  made  by  the 
same  writer,  and  in  connexion  with  the  same  subject,  as  the 
declaration,  that  "  no  argcmknt  i.s  worth  taking  into  the  ac- 
cocNT,  that  tins  not  a  palpable  hearing  on  the  clear  and  naked 
topic, — the  Scriptural  evidence  of  Episcopacy.^'' 

Now,  against  the  principles  of  i«lerpretalion  here  stated,  and 
which  the  Traist  led  us  to  suppose  were  abandoned,  we  enter  our 
decided  and  solemn  protest.  The  question, — the  only  question 
in  the  case,  is,  whether  Episcopacy  "has  the  authority  of  Scrip- 
ture?" (Tract,  p.  3.)  The  affirmation  is,  that  if  it  has  not  "it 
is  not  necessarily  binding."  (p.  3.)-  The  principle  of  intcrpret- 
aiion,  which  in  the  Answer  is  introduced  to  guide  us  in  this 
inipiiry,  is,  that  "the  fathers  are  consuUed  on  the  subject, 
because  the  fabric  of  the  minislry  which  llioy  describe,  forms 
an  historical  basis  for  interpreting  Scripliu'e."  (Answer,  p.  3.)  l\\ 
ord(;r  to  miderstand  the  bearing  of  tiiis  rule  of  interpretation  it 
is  necfssary  to  know  what  it  means.  A  "basis"  is  defined  to  be 
"the  foundation  of  a  tiling;   that  on  which  a  thing  stands  or 


136  REVIEW — ANSWER   TO    A    REVIEW   OF 

lies*  that  on  which  it  rests;  the  ground-work  or  first  principle; 
that  which  supports."  Webster.  "An  hislorical  basis"  musi  iTitan, 
therefore,  that  the  opinions,  or  facts  of  iiistory,  lliat-is,  in  this 
case,  tlie  tesiimony  of  the  fathers,  constitute  ihefoitmlalion,  the 
g}-oiciid-work,  or  first  principle  of  tlie  interpretation  of  the  Bible; 
or  that  on  which  such  an  interpretation  rcstft,  or  by  which  it  is 
supported.     It  would  seem  to  follow,  therefore,  tliat  unless  we 
first  become  acquainted    with   tliis  "historical    basis,"   we  are 
wholly  in  the  dark  about  the  proper  interpretation  of  the  Bible, 
and  that  our  interpretation  is  destitute  of  any  true  support  nnd 
authority.     To  this  principle  of  interpretation,  in  this  case,  and 
in  all  others,  the  objections  are  obvious  and  numerous.    (1.)  Our 
first  objection  lies  against  tiie  supposed  necessity  of  having  any 
such  previously  ascertained  basis,  in  order  to  a  just  interpreta- 
tion of  tlie  oracles  of  God.     We  object  wholly  to  tiie  doclrine, 
that  the  Scriptures  are  to  be  interpreted  by  historical  facts  to  be 
developed  long  after  the  book  was  written.     The  great  mass  ot 
men  are  wholly  incompetent  to  enter  into  any  such  "  hislorical" 
inquiry;  but  the  great  mass  of  men  are  not  unqualified  to  un- 
derstand the  general   drift  and  tenor  of  the  New  Testament. 
(2.)  The  statement  is,  that  "the  fabric  of  the  ministry  which 
they  describe,"  is  to  be  the  basis  of  such  interpretation.     But 
who  knows  what  the  fabric  of  the  ministry  which  they  describe 
is?     It  is  to  be  remembered,  that  the  question  is  not  respecting 
the  ministry  in  the  fourth  century  and  onward:  but  the  inquiry, 
— and  the  only  one  of  material  value  in  any  supposition, — per- 
tains to  the  fathers  previous  to  that  period.     And  there  every 
thing  is  unsettled.     Prelacy  claims  the  fathers  in  that  unknown 
age.     The  Papacy  claims  tiie  fathers  there.     Presbyterianism 
claims  the  fathers  there.    Congregationalism  and  Independency, 
too,  claim  them  there.     Every  thing  is  unsettled  and  chaotic. 
And  this  is  the  very  point  which  has  been  the  interminable 
subject  of  contention  in  this  whole  inquiry,  and  from  whieli  we 
hoped  we  had  escaped,  by  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  Tract. 
Yet  the  position  noiv  advanced,  would  lead  us  again  into  all  the 
difficulties,  and  controversies,  and  jostling  elements,  and  contra- 
dictory statements,  which  have  always  attended  tiie  appeal  to 
the  fathers.     If  we  are  to  wait  until  we  have  ascertained  "the 
fabric  of  the  ministry"  which  these  fathers  describe,  before  we 
have  a  "basis"  for  interpreting  Scripture,  we  may  close  the 
New  Testament  in  despair.     (3.)  This  canon  of  interpretation 
is  contrary  In  the  rule  wiiich  Dr.  Onderdonk  has  himself  laid 
down  in  the  Tract  itself  (p. "3.)     In  that  instance,  the  authority 
of  the  Scriptures  was  declared  to  be  ample  and  final.     And 
throughout  the  Tract  there  is  a  manifest  indication  of  a  belief, 
that  the  Bible  is  susceptible  of  interpretation,  on  the  acknow- 
ledged rules  of  language,  and  the  principles  of  common  sense. 
We  hailed  such  a  manifestation,  not  only  as  auspicious  to  the 
cause  of  truth  in  regard  to  the  claims  of  Episcopacy,  but  because 
it  evinced  the  spirit  M  which  the  Church  must  come, — of  a 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  137 

direct,  unqualified,  and   final   appeal  (o  the  Word  of  Gon, — to 
determine   religions  doctrine.     To  lliat  standard   we   mean    lo 
adhere.      And,   as  far   as  in   us   lies,  we   intend  to  hold  it  up 
to   the   view  of  men,  and    to   insist   on    tlie   great  truth  from 
which    nothing  shall  ever  divert  us,   and  from  which  we  fer- 
vently pray  the  Cliurch   may  never   be  diverted,   tliat  we   are 
not  to  look  for  tlie  discovery  of  truth,  by  ascertaining ^/-a'^  an 
'•historical  basis,"  or,  a  set  of  instruments  by  whicii  we  are  to 
measure  and  adjust  the  proportions  of  truth  which  we  find  in  the 
revelation  of  God.     Witliout  any  design  to  disparage  or  under- 
value llie  fathers,  whom  we  sincerely  reverence,  as  having  been 
holy,  bold,  and  venerable  men  ;  witliout  any  blindness,  as  \\r 
tielieve,  to  the  living  lustre  of  that  piety  which  led  many  of  them 
to  the  stake;    without  any  apprehension,  that  their  testiiuonv, 
wlif>n  examined,  would  be  found  to  be  on  the  side  of  Episcopa<'v, 
— for  it  remains  yet  to  be  seen,  that  the  fathers  of  the  first  two 
centuries  ever  dreamed  of  the  pride  and  domination  wiiich  sub- 
sequently crept  into  the  Church,  and  assmned  th«  form  of  pre- 
lacy and  popery  :  witliout  any  thing  to  inthieuce  us,  so  far  as  wr 
know,  from  any  of  these  '•  extraneous"  souraes,  we  intend  to  do 
all  in  our  power  lo  extend  and  perpetuate  the  doctrine,  that  lh(> 
ultimate  appeal  in  all  religious  inquiry,  is  to  be  the  Bible,  and  the 
Bible  only.     "The  Bible,"  said  Cliillingworth,  "  is  the  religion 
of  the  Protestants."      We  rejoice  to  hear  this  sentiment  eciioed 
from  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Pennsylvania.     And  without  mean- 
ing to  insinuate,  that  this  sentiment  is  not  as  honestly  acted  on 
by  Episcopalians  as  by  any  other  denomination  of  Christians, 
we  may  add,  that  we  deem  the  first  sentence  of  the  Tract  worthy 
to  be  written  in  letters  of  gold,  on  the  posts  of  every  Episcopal 
sancMiary,  anil  over  every  altar,  and  on  the  cover  of  every  "  Book 
of  Common  Prayer."    "  The  claim,  of  Episcnpacij  to  be  o/Dioiih-' 
iiintifutinn,  and  therefore  obliifatonj  on  the  Church,  re.'its  famla- 
rnentalbj  on  the  one  question, — Has  it  the  aulhorit;/  nf  Scripture '? 
If  it  has  not,  it  is  not  n ecessari 1 1/ binding:"     (4.)  Our  fourth 
objection  to  this  rule  of  interpretation  is,  that  it  is,  substantially, 
that  on  which  rests  the  papal  hierarchy.     We  do  not  know  that 
the  Papist  would  wish  to  express  his  principles  of  iiilerpreialion 
in  stronger  language,  than  that  "the  fat>!iers  are  consulted  on 
this  subject,  because  the  fabric  of  the  ministry  which  they  de- 
scribe, forms  an  historical  basis  for  interpreting  Scripture."     'J'o 
us  it  seems,  tliat  this  would  express  all. that  they  ask  ;  and  as  we 
doubt  not  tliat  Dr.  Onderdonk  would  shrink  from  any  approxi- 
mation to  the  Papacy,  quite  as  firmly  as  ourselves,  we  deem  ii 
*)ecess;iry    merely  to  snugest   the   consideration,  to  render  i\<.<: 
objf^ctioii  at  once  satisfactory  to  his  own  mind. 

We  objf'ct,  also,  to  the  princifile  of  interpretation  advanced  o;i 
p.  IS,  of  the  Answer,  which  we  have  already  quoted.  The  (  lei 
llii-re  assimied,  is,  that  various  orders  of  men  are  observable  im 
civil  oovernmenls,  &c.  ;  and  hence,  that  there  is  presumpii^e 
evidence,  that  such  orders  are  to  be  found  iu  the  Scriptures,  We 
12* 


138  REVIEW — ANSWER   TO   A  REVIEW   OF 

are  not  ignorant  of  the  purpose  for  which  tliis  fact  is  adduced. 
It  is  to  show,  that  the  ''burden  of  proof"  does  not  lie  so  entirely 
on  the  Episcopalian,  as  we  had  affirmed  in  the  Keview.  We 
admit,  to  some  extent,  the  modifying  force  of  the  circumstances, 
so  far  as  the  "burden  of  proof"  is  concerned.  But  itjnerely 
lig-Jitens  the  burden  ;  it  does  not  remove  it.  Presumption,  in 
such  a  case,  is  not  proof.  When  the  fact  affirmed  relates  to  a 
doctrine  of  the  Bible,  it  is  not  sufficient  to  say,  that  that  fact 
occurred  elsewhere,  and  therefore  it  must  occur  in  the  Bible.  It 
is  still  the  business  of  the  Episcopalian,  to  prove  his  affirmation 
from  the  New  Testament  itself,  that  bishops  are  superior  to  oilier 
ministers  of  the  Gospel,  in  ministerial  power  and  riglits.  Tins 
is  his  affirmation  ;  tliis  is  the  point  wliich  lie  urges  ;  this  is  to  be 
made  out  from  the  Bible  only ;  and  assuredly  the  fact,  that  there 
are  dukes,  and  earls,  and  emperors,  and  admirals,  and  nabobs, 
forms,  at  best,  avery  slight  presumption  in  favor  of  the  affirmation, 
that  the  ministry  of  the  Gospel  consists  of  three  'orders.'  But 
our  objections  may  be  further  stated.  So  fur  as  the  presumption 
goes,  it  is  not  parlicularli/  in  favor  of  Episcopacy,  as  consisti'iig 
ill  THREE  orders  of  the  clergy.  For,  (1.)  The  fact  is  not,  that 
there  are  three  orders  observable  every  wlierc.  It  is,  that  there 
are  many  orders  and  ranks  of  civil  officers  and  of  men.  (2.)  The 
presumption  drawn  from  what  has  taken  place,  would  be  rather 
in  favor  of  despotism,  and  the  papacy.  (3.)  The  presumption  is 
equally  met  by  the  doctrine  of  Presbyterianism  as  by  prelacy. 
Presbyterians  hold  equally  to  a  division  of  their  community  into 
various  ranks, — into  bishops,  and  elders,  and  deacons,  and  peo- 
ple. The  presumption,  drawn  from  the  fact  that  civil  society  is 
thus  broken  up,  is  as  really  in  their  favor,  as  in  favor  of  Epis- 
copacy. (4.)  The  Congregationalist  may  urge  it  with  the  same 
propriety.  His  community  registers  tlie  names  of  his  minister, 
cuid  deacons,  and  church,  and  congregation,  each  with  distinct 
privileges  and  rights.  If  Dr.  Onderdonk  should  reply  to  this, 
that  his  remark  referred  only  to  the  distinction  of  "■systems  of 
office,  both  religious  and  civil,"  (p.  18,)  and  "that  among  officers, 
there  is  a  difference  of  power  and  rights,"  (p.  19.)  we  reply,  that 
the  distinction  of  officers  pertains  to  other  churches,  as  well  as 
the  Episcopal.  No  Non-episcopalian,  ])erhaps,  can  be  found, 
who  holds  to  a  parity  of  office.  He  will  refer,  at  once,  to  his 
minister,  to  his  elders,  to  liis  deacons,  as  evincing  sufficient 
disparity,  to  meet  the  full  force  of  the  prestimptioii  alleged  by 
Dr.  Onderdonk.  But  our  main  objection  here,  as  before,  is  to  the 
principle  of  interpretation.  We  respectfully  insist,  that  it  should 
be  laid  aside,  as  an  "  extraneous  consideration,"  in  the  inquiry, 
whether  Episcopacy  "has  the  authority  of  Scripture." 

In  our  review,  we  stated  that  the  burden  of  proof,  in  this  inquiry, 
was  laid  wholly  on  the  friends  of  Episcopacy,  (p.  7.)  Tiiis  point 
was  so  obvious,  that  we  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  illustrate  it 
at  length.  Nor  do  we  now  intend  to  do  more  than  merely,  by 
adverting  to  it,  to  recall  h  to  the  attention  of  our  readers.     The 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE.  139 

cntlior  of  the  "  Answer"  has  endeavored  to  7-emove  fins  burden 
froin  himself  and  his  friends,  (p.  4,  and  p.  18.)      This  }ie  has 
done,  by  attenipiing  to  show  that  there  is  a  presumptive  argu- 
ment in  favor  of  Episcopacy  ;  which   presumption  throws  tlie 
task  oC  prnvins^  the  parity  of  tiie  clergy  on  tliose  who  advocate 
it.     Now  we  are  not  disposed  to  enter  into  a  controversy  on  this 
point.     To  us  it  seemed,  and  slill  ssems,  to  be  a  phiin  casi;,  tliat 
wliere  it  was  affirmed  that  the  cler<>y  of  tlie  Ciirislian  Church 
was  separated,  by  Divine  antliority,  into  three  grades,  or  orders, 
and  that  one  of  tiiose  orders  had  the  e:fd usine  nght  of  oniina- 
tion,  of  discipline,  and  of  general  superintendence;  it  could  not 
be  a  matter  requiring  much  deliberation,  to  know  wliere  rested 
the   burden  of  proof.      If  a  man  assumes   authority  over  an 
army,  demanding  the  subordination  of  all  other  officers  to  his 
will,  it  is  not  a  very  unreasonable  presumption,  that  the  burden 
of  proof  lies  with  him  ;  nor  would  it  be  the  ubcious  course,  to 
expect  the  entire  mass  of  officers  to   show,  that   he   had   vol 
received  such  a  commission.     We  shall,  therefore,  feel  ourselves 
to  be  pursuing  a  very  obvious  course,  if  we  do  not  recognise  the 
authority  of  Episcopal  bishops,  imless  there  is  proof  positive  of 
their  commission.      We  may  add  further,  that  in  the  supposed 
case  of  the  commander  of  the  army  or  the  navy,  we  should  not 
regard  tliat  as  a  very  satisfactory  proof,  which  was  pursued  with 
as  little  directness  and  explicitness  as  are  evinced  in  the  armi- 
inent  to  establish  the  original  domination  and  perpetuity  of  the 
prelatical  office.     And  in  this  connexion  we  may  remark,  that  it 
is  perfectly  immaterial,  as  to  the  main  point,  what  may  be  tlie 
o[)inion  of  the  man  who  calls  the  claim  in  question,  or  what 
may  be  the  particular  denomination  to  which  he  is  attached. 
Whether  he  is  an  Independent,  a  Presbyterian,  or  a  Cougrega- 
tionalist,  it  may  be  equally  true,  that  the'bishop  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  is  miable  to  make  out  his  claims  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment.    The  only  material  point,  in  which  all.  other  denomina- 
tions are  agreed,  is,  that  the  ministers  of  the  New  Testament  are 
on   an   er/ualiti/,  in   the   respect  under  consideration  ;    that  the 
power  of  ordaining,  and  administering  discipline,  and  of  super- 
intending the  concerns  of  the  Church,  is  intrusted  to  them,  as 
equals,  in  opposition  to  the  exclusive  and  exalted  assumptions  ol 
a  ftfw,  who  claim  the  right  to  deprive  them  of  these  powers,  and 
to  make  their  ministrations  null  and  void.     And  when  claims  oi 
this  order  are  advanced, — claims  designed  to  dispossess  the  great 
mass  of  the  ministry  througjiout  the  world,  of  the  riglit  of  trans- 
niitling  their  office  to  others  ;  of  exercisina  government  and  dis- 
cipline in   their  own  pastoral  charges;  of  superintending  and 
controlling  the  affairs  of  the  particular  portion  of  the  Chiu-ch 
universal,    with    which    they   are   specifically   intrusted;    when 
Claims  like  tluise  are  nresenled,  tending  to  (!(>grade  lliein   from 
tlieir  office,  to  annihilate  their  authority,  and  toh^ave  their  char<,'(!S 
willioiii  ;i  ministry  ;— we  may  respectfully  insist,  that  the  proo 
of  this  should  be  drawn,  by  lio  circiunlocution,  from  liio  Uiblo 


140  REVIEW — ANSWER   TO   A   REVIEW   OF 

We  wish  to  see,  with  great  pertinency,  the  chapter,  and  the 
verse  :  we  can  with  difficuhy  resist  llie  impression  lliat  it  siiould 
be  done  totiilem  verbis,  or  at  least,  so  nearly  so,  that  tiiere  could 
be  no  possibility  of  mistake. 

AVe  may  here  remind  our  readers  of  the  precise  points  which 
Episcopacy  is  called  upon  to  make  out.  The  fust  is,  that  the 
apostles  were  "distinguished  from  the  elders,  because  they  were 
superior  to  them  in  ministerial  power  and  rights."  (Tract,  p.  15.) 
The  second  is,  that  this  distinction  "  was  so  persevered  in,  as  to 
indicate  that  it  was  a  pennauent  arrangement."  (Tract,  p.  28.) 
These  are  independent  propositions.  One  hy  no  means  follows 
from  tlie  other.  Siiould  tiie  first  be  admitted,  yet  t!ie  second  is 
to  be  established  by  equally  explicit  and  independent  prof,f. 
Nay,  the  second  is  by  far  the  most  material  point,  and  should, 
as  we  shall  show,  be  fortified  by  the  most  irrefragable  arguments. 
The  third  point,  indispensable  to  the  other  two,  is,  that  there  is 
no  evidence  in  the  New  Testament,  that  presbyters,  or  elders, 
discharged  the  functions  which  are  now  claimed  for  bisliops;  that 
is,  that  ihey  either  (1.)  ordained,  or  (2.)  exercised  discipline,  or 
(3.)  exerted  a  general  supervision.  (Tract,  p.  11.)  Unless  then 
it  is  shown,  that  not  one  of  tliese  functions  was  ever  performed 
by  presbyters,  the  Episcopal  claim  fails  of  support,  and  must  be 
abandoned.  These  are  independent  positions,  and  a  failure  in 
one,  is  a  failure  in  the  whole. 

To  a  cursory  review  of  what  can  be  said  on  these  points,  we 
now  propose  to  call  the  attention  of  our  readers. 

Tiie  first  claim  asserted,  is,  that  the  apo^es  were  "  distin- 
guished from  tiie  elders,  because  they  were  .^perior  to  them,  in 
ministerial  power  and  rights."  (Tract,  p.  15.)  The  points  of 
their  alleged  superiority,  are,  exclusive  ordination,  exclusive 
discipline,  exclusive  confirmation,  and  exclusive  right  of  general 
superintendence.  The  question  is,  whether  this  is  the  nature  of 
the  superiority  with  wliich  the  apostles  were  intrusted  ;  or, 
which  is  the  same  thing,  were  these  the  purposes/or  which  they 
were  set  apart  to  the  apostolic  office,  and  for  which  they  were 
called,  apostles?  Dr.  Ouderdonk  atfirms  it ;  we  take  the  liberty, 
most  respectfully,  of  calling  for  explicit  proof  of  it,  from  the 
New  Testament. 

His  direct  proof  is  contained  in  a  nut-shell.  It  consists  of  07ie 
expression  of  Scripture,  (Acts  xv.  2,  4,  6,  22 ;  xvi.  4,) — "  Apostles 
and  elders,"  "apostles,  and.  elders,  and  brethren;"  and  a  note 
on  p.  12,  of  the  Tract,  and  in  the  reply  expanded  to  more  than 
two  pages,  showing  that,  in  his  apprehension,  they  administered 
discipline.  As  this  is  tlie  basis  on  which  the  wiiole  fabric  is 
reared,  and  as  it  embraces  tlie  very  gest  of  t!ie  "  Answer,"  we 
shall  be  pardoned  for  adverting  to  it  with  some  particularity. 

We  may  then  inquire,  why  the  apostles  were  distinguished 
from  the  elders,  or  presbyters?  Dr.  Ouderdonk  affirms,  that  it  was 
because  they  were  "superior  in  ministerial  power  and  rights." 
The  argument  on  this  subject,  from  the  New  Testament,  is,  tliat 


i 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  141 

tlie  two  classes  of  men  arc  distinguished  from  each  other,  (Acts 
XV.  2.  4,  6,  22  ;  xvi.  4.)  by  the  followins;  expressions  ;  '"apostles 
and  elders,''  "apostles,  and  elders,  and  brethren."  Now  in  re- 
gard to  tiiis  proofs  we  beg  leave  to  make  the  following  remarks  : — 

(1.)  That  ills  the  o»/i/ direct  passage  of  Scripture,  which  Dr.  (). 
is  able  to  adduce,  on  the  subject  of  the  alleged  superiority  of  the 
apostles.  Its  importance,  in  his  view,  may  be  seen  from  the 
fact,  that  it  is  not  merely  the  only  proof,  but,  that  it  is"  repeated 
not  less  than  five  times,  in  the  space  of  less  than  a  single  page  of 
the  Tract,  (pp.  14.  15,)  and  that  it  occupies  a  similar  prominence 
in  the  Answer.  The  Tract  has  been  written  four  years.  Dili- 
gent research  during  that  time,  it  would  be  supposed,  migliLliave 
led  to  the  discovery  of  some  other  text,  that  had  a  bearing  on 
the  point.  But  the  matter  still  rests  here.  There  is  no  other 
text ;  and  the  fabric  is  to  be  sustained  on  the  solitary  expression, 
"  apostles  and  elders,"  "  apostles,  and  elders,  and  brethren." 

(2.)  What  does  this  passage  prove?  It  proves  this,  and  no 
more,  that  there  was  a  distinction  of  some  sort  between  the 
apostles  and  elders,  which  is  a  point  of  jnst  as  much  importance, 
as  when  we  afRrm  that  one  class  were  called  apostles  and 
another  called  elder.s.  Bui^it  is  ditTicult  for  us  to  see  how  this 
determines  any  thing  respecting  the  reasons  of  the  distinction. 
In  Ephesians  iv.  11,  the  Ap(:)sile  affirms  tliat  God  gave  some, 
a|)ostles ;  and  some,  prophets;  and  some,  evangelists;  a)id 
some,  pastors  atid  teachers.  Here  a  distinction  is  made  out. 
But  is  the  nature  of  the  distinction  thereby  ascertained  7  I  speak 
of  guineas,  and  doubloons,  and  guilders.  I  affirm  a  distinction, 
indeed;  but  is  its  nature  ascertained  ?  Have  I  determined  that 
the  guinea  is,  therefore,  superior  in  weight  or  value  to  the 
others  ? 

(3.)  We  have  never  denied  that  there  was  a  distinction 
between  the  apostles,  and  elders,  and.  brethren.  The  very  fact 
that  they  had  the  name  apostles,  shows  that  there  mtist  Inive 
been  some  distinction,  or  some  reason  why  they  were  so  called. 
Unusual  discernment,  or  labored  argument,  siirelv,  are  not 
necessary  to  perceive  this.  But  the  very  point  is,  what  is  the 
nature  of  this  distinction  ?  And  this  is  to  be  settled,  not  by  the 
use  of  the  word,  but  by  the  statement  in  the  New  Testament ; 
and  it  is  incumbent  on  the  Episcopalian  to  show  by  proof-texts, 
that  it  was  because  the  apostles  were  superior  in  the  power  of 
ordination,  of  confirmation,  of  discipline,  and  of  general  super- 
intendence of  a  diocese.  Dr.  Onderdonk  affirmed,  that  the 
name  was  not  so  given,  because  they  were  appointed  by  Christ 
personally;  nor  because  they  had  seen  the  Lord  after  his  resnr- 
reciion  ;  nor  because  they  had  the  power  of  working  miracles: 
and  then  observed,  that  "  it  followed,  or  would  not  he  question- 
ed, that  it  was  because  they  were  superior  in  ministerial  power 
and  rights."  (Tract,  p.  15.)  It  seenis  not  to  have;  occurred  to 
him.  that  tliey  could  be  a()pointed  to  he  wi  tm:ssi:s  of  his  entire 
ministry,  including  the  fact  of  his  resurrection  as  a  main  point. 


142  REVIEW — ANSWER   TO    A   REVIEW    OP 

We  took  the  liberty,  therefore,  of  examinhig  this  matter,  as  very 
material  to  the  argnment.  We  proved,  (1.)  That  in  the  original 
appointmeiUof  the  Apostles,  liiere  was  no  reference  to  their  supe- 
rii>rily  in  the  [Mtwers  ofordination,  discipline,  «Stc.  (Review,  [).10.) 
'J'his  pDsition  we  supported  by  llie  three  separate  aeconnls  of 
Maltiiew,  Mark  and  Luke.  (2.)  Tiiat  no  sneh  lliiiig  occnrred  in 
tlie  instrnclions  of  our  Lord,  after  his  resurrection  fr(jiii  tlie 
dead.  This  also  we  confirmed,  by  an  examination  of  tlie  tesli- 
mony  of  Matthew,  Mark  and  Luke,  in  neither  of  whose  gospels 
was  there  found  a  vestige  of  such  instructions.  (Review,  p.  10.) 
(3.)  'I'liat  there  was  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testaiuent, 
any  account  that  what  Dr.  O.  affirmed  as  the  peculiarity  of  tlie 
apostolic  office,  was  known  to  the  writers.  This  conclusion  we 
rested  upon  our  own  examination,  and  the  fact  that  Dr.  O.  had 
not  adduced  any  such  passage.  (4.)  'J'hat  the  reason  of  the 
appfiintment  to  the  apostolic  office  was  expressly  affinned  ;  and 
tliat  it  was  not  that  which  Dr.  O.  supposed  it  to  be.  We 
showed,  («)  that  it  was  expressly  affirmed  in  tlie  original 
appointment,  (Luke  xxiv.  48;  Matt,  xxviii.  18,  19,)  that  they 
should  be  witnesses  of  these  things  ;  (Review,  p.  12  ;)  {b)  that 
Siis  was  expressly  provided  for  in  tlie  case  of  tlie  election  of  one 
to  fill  the  place  vacated  by  Judas  ;  (Acts  i.  21,  22  ;)  (c)  that 
this  was  the  account  whicli  the  Apostles  uniformly  gave  of  the 
design  of  their  appointment;  (see  p.  13;)  {d)  that  the  same 
thing  was  again  expressly  provided  for  in  the  case  of  the  Apos- 
tle Paul,  and,  that  in  order  to  a  qualification  for  tiiat  office,  he 
was  permitted  to  "see  the  Just  One,"  the  Lord  Ji:.su.^  ;  (Acts  xxii. 
14;)  and,  (e)  that  he  himself  expressly  appeals  to  the  fact,  as  a 
proof  that  lie  was  fully  invested  with  the  apostolic  office.  (1  Cor. 
ix.  1,  2.)  (See  Review,  p.  15.)  In  the  course  of  the  argument, 
we  adduced  not  less  tlian  twenty  explicit  passages  of  Scripture, 
bearing  directly  on  the  point,  and  proving,  beyond  dispute,  that 
this  was  the  design  of  the  appointment  to  the  apostolic  office. 
Our  purpose  in  this  was  evident.  It  was  to  show,  that  the  pecu- 
liarity of  the  apostolic  office  was  of  such  a  nature  that  it  could 
not  be  transmitted  to  distant  generations;  but  that  it  had  a  spe- 
cific, yet  very  important  design,  which,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
must  cease. 

Witii  deep  interest,  therefore,  we  opened  the  "  Answer,"  to 
ascertain  how  this  array  of  scriptural  argument  was  met.  We 
did  not  deem  it  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  there  would  be 
some  new  attempt  to  show,  that  the  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic 
office  was  to  ordain  ;  that  the  passages  of  Scripture  on  wiiich 
we  had  relied  were  irrelevant;  or,  that  other  passages  might  be 
adduced  in  proof  of  what  Dr.  O.  had  affirmed  to  be  the  pecu- 
liarity of  the  apostolic  office,  and  which  we  had  respectfully 
denied.  Our  readers  will  join  with  us  in  our  ^amazement,''  to 
find  the  following  as  the  result  of  an  examination  of  the 
"Answer." 

(1.)  A  solemn,  and  soinewhat  pompous  re-adducing  of  the 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    RY    SCRIPTt'RE.  113 

expression,  (Acts  xv.,)  "the  apostles  and  elders,"  "  tlie  apostles, 
awl  elders,  and  brethren;"  (Answer,  p.  7;)  a  passage  main- 
tainini?  still  its  solitary  disunity,  and  reposing  in  the  "Answer," 
as  it  had  in  the  '-Tract,-'  in  its  own  lonely  grandeur.  We  could 
not  restrain  our  '  amazement,'  that  no  other  passages  were  even 
referred  to,  on  this  material  point;  and  we  came  to  the  conclu- 
sion, that  we  had  reached  an  end  of  the  argument,  so  far  as 
direct  Scripture  proof  was  concerned. 

(2.)  We  found  a  notice  of  our  extended  array  of  proof-texts, 
showing  what  was  tiie  design  of  the  apostolic  appointment,  of  a 
character  so  remarkable  that  we  shall  quote  it  entire. 

"  The  reviewer,  in  order  to  show  what  he  thinks  was  the 
point  in  which  the  apostles  excelled  the  elders,  in  tiie  matter  in 
question,  dwells  largely  on  the  fact  that  they  were  special  wit- 
nesses of  our  Lord's  resurrection;  and  with  the  help  of  capital 
and  italic  letters,  he  has  certainly  made  a  showy  argument. 
But  nol)ody  denies  that  they  were  the  special  witnesses,  or,  that 
thev  were  distinguished  from  the  elders,  as  well  as  from  others 
called  apostles, — the  Tract  gave  due  attention  to  both  these  parti- 
culars. The  point  is,  A^'as  this  distinction  ttie  one  that  led  to 
the  expression,  'apostles  and  elders?'  Surely  not.  Among 
those  apostles  was  Barnabas,  and  perhaps  Silas,  (Acts  xiv.  14  ; 
XV.  2,  4,  22  ;  1  Thess.  i.  1 ;  ii.  6,)  neither  of  whom  was  a  special 
witness  of  the  resurrection.  Besides,  the  expressions  '  apostles 
and  elders,'  '  aposlles,  and  elders,  and  brethren,'  are  used 
with  immediate  reference  to  the  council  at  Jerusalem,  and  the 
reviewer  is  more  acute  than  we  pretend  to  be,  if  he  can  say 
why,  in  a  council  acting  on  questions  concerning  '  idols,  blood, 
tilings  strangled,  and  licentiousness,'  the  special  witnesses  of 
the  resurrection  should,  as  such,  have  peculiar  authority.  We 
really  think  the  Tract  argues  with  more  consistency  when  it 
says  that  tlie  apostles  were  minister ialbj  above  the  elders." 
Answer,  p.  10.  ' 

Mere,  it  will  be  observed,  there  is  no  notice  taken  of  the  texts 
which  we  had  adduced,  as  irrelevant,  or  unsatisfactory  in  number, 
or  as  unfairly  interpreted.  Dr.  Onderdoiik,  if  he  was  the  writer  of 
liu;  Answer,  deemed  it  an  ample  notice  of  those  texts  to  remark, 
that  "  with  the  help  of  capital  and  //a/jclolters,  he  (the  review- 
er,) had  certainly  made  a  showy  argument."  (Answer,  p.  10.) 
Tiiat  our  argument  was  thus  noticed,  was,  indeed,  to  us  a  mat- 
ter of  •  amazement.'  It  was,  however,  an  indication,  of  which 
we  were  not  slow  to  avail  ourselves,  and  the  hold  upon  which 
we  shall  not  be  swift  to  lose,  that  our  proof-texts  were  ad  rem, 
and  tliat  tliny  settled  the  question.  When  all  that  the  Assistant 
Bisliop  of  Pennsylvania  deems  it  proper  to  say  of  our  array  of 
ni'iif  than  twenty  explicit  diiclarations  of  tiu;  Word  of  (ion,  is, 
that  by  the  help  of  capitals  and  italics,  they  constitute  a 
".snOWV  argument,"  (we  mean  no  disrespect,  when  we  dis- 
play the  word  in  a  showy  form,)  we  ihu-m  the  conclusion  to  be 
inevitable,  lliut  our  texts  are  just  what  wc  inlonded  they  should 


144  REVIEW — ANSWER   TO    A    REVIEW    OP 

he,— tliat  they  settled  the  question, — and,  to  use  an  expression 
from  the  favorite  chapter  of  liie  Acts  of  the  Apostles?)  we  "rejoice 
for  tlie  consolation."  Acts  xv.  31. 

(3.)  Though  we  were  not  met  by  any  new  proof-texts,  or  by 
any  answer  to  our  own,  we  were  referred  to  tlie  sentiments  of 
the  following  distingiiislied  men,  viz.  the  late  Dr.  Wilson,  Dr. 
Miller,  Dr.  Campell,  Matthew  Henry,  ^-{he  divines  who  argued 
with  Charles  I.  in  the  isle  of  Wight,"  and  Calvin,  to  prove,  that 
I  he  apostles  were  superior  to  tlie  elders,  and  liie  evangelists. 
(Answer,  p.  10.)  Respecting  tiicse  authorities,  we  may  he  per- 
mitted to  remark,  (1.)  that  we  sliall  probably  not  yield,  out  of 
regard  to  their  names,  to  any  persons.  With  us,  they  have  all 
the  authority  which  iuiins;)ired  men  can  ever  be  allowed  to  have. 
'J'he  writer  of  the  Review  utay  be- permitted  to  remark,  perhaps, 
that  he  has  occasion  of  peculiar  respect  for  two  of  those  venera- 
ble men.  By  one,  —  who^e  superior,  in  profound  powers  of 
reasoning,  in  varied  and  extensive  learning,  and  in  moral  worth, 
he  believes,  is  not  now  to  be  found, among  the  living,  in  any 
American  churcli,^-iie  was  preceded  in  tlie  office  whicli  he  now 
holds.  At  the  feet  of  the  oilier,  it  has  been  his  privilege  to  sit, 
for  nearly  four  years,  and  to  receive  the  instructions  of  wisdom 
fiom  his  lips  ;  and,  whatever  skill  he  may  have  in  conducting 
t'lis  argument  on  the  government  of  tlie  churches,  he  owes  to 
the  "basis"  which  was  laid  by  tiiose  instructions.  WMiatever 
may  be  said,  therefore,  of  these  authorities  adduced  in  the 
'■  Answer,"  will  not  be  traced  to  want  of  respect  for  these  vene- 
rable names.  But,  (2.)  we  may  remark,  that  in  this  argument, 
the  authorities  of  uninspired  men  are  to  be  laid  out  of  the  ac- 
count. With  all  due  deference  to  tliem,  and  to  Dr.  O.,  we  must 
be  permitted  to  believe,  that  tiieir  authority  belongs  to  the  "ex- 
traneous considerations,"  as  well  as  that  of  the  opinion  of  Cran- 
mer,  (Answer,  p.  5,)  wliicli,  by  common  consent,  it  had  been 
agreed  to  lay  out  of  the  controversy.  (See  Tract,  pp.  3-10;  Review, 
p.  5.)  Our' wonder  is,  that  after  tlie  disclaimer  of  relying  on 
these  extraneous  considerations,  in  the  Tract,  the  author  of  liie 
Answer  should  have  occupied  nearly  two  pages,  with  the  state- 
ments of  these  distinguished  men.  (3.)  Their  authority,  even 
wlien  adduced,  does  not  bear  on  the  point  before  us.  The  ques- 
tion is,  whether  the  apostles  were  superior  to  other  ministers  of 
tlie  Gospel,  in  ministerial  power  and  rights?  that  is,  in  the 
power  of  ordination,  confirmation,  discipline,  and  general  super 
iiitendence.  Their  auliiorities  adduced,  prove  only,  that  in  the 
judgment  of  these  venerable  men,  they  were  superior  in  soiue 
respects,  to  evangelists  and  teachers  ;  or,  that  there  was  a  dis- 
tinction between  them, — a  point  on  which  we  make  no  denial. 
On  the  only  question  in  debate,  they  make  no  affirmation.  On 
the  claims  set  up  by  Episcopalians,  that  the  apostles  were  supe- 
rior in  nirlinatiun,  &c.,  they  concede  nothing,  nor  did  they  believe 
a  word  of  it, 

Having  thus  noticed  the  "Answer"  on  this  part  of  our  argu 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  145 

ment,  we  shall  dismiss  it.  We  do  it  by  simply  remiiidiiiir  <r.it 
readers,  that  the  solitary  text  whicli  undisputed  leaniiiiL;,  i.ilcuis, 
and  zeal  have  discovered,  during  a  period  of  more  tl'iui  ["our 
years,  since  the  discussion  first  commenced, — the  lonely  Scri|)  urc 
proof  of  the  sweeping  claims,  that  tlie  apostles  o»/y  iiad  die 
power  of  ordination,  and  that  this  was  the  peculiarity  of  Hie 
olTice,  —  stands  forth  in  the  Tract,  and  in  the  Answer:  -the 
ai)ostles  and  elders,"  "apostles,  and  elders,  and  brethren  !"' 

Out  tlie  author  of  the  "Answer"  complains,  (p.  11,)  that  we 
did  not  give  the  '  whole'  of  his  argument  on  llie  subject;  and  he 
refers  to  a  note  on  p.  12  of  the  Tract,  designed  to  show  that 
the  apostles  had  the  power  of  administering  discipline,  and  that 
therefore  they  were  superior  to  the  presbyters,  or  held  a  more 
elevated  grade  of  office.     The  note  is  this  : — 

"That  the  apostles  alone  ordained,  will  be  proved.  In  1  Cor. 
iv.  19-21  ;  V.  3-5;  3  Cor.  ii.  6;  vii.  12;  x.  8;  xiii.  2,  10;  and 
1  Tim.  i.  20;  are  recorded  inflictions  and  remissions  of  disci- 
pline performed  by  an  apostle,  or  threatenings  on  liis  purt, 
although  there  must  have  been  elders  in  Corinth,  and  certainly 
were  in  Ephesus." 

This  note  he  expands  into  an  argument,  which  constitutes  the 
most  material  part  of  the  "Answer."  It  is  incumbent  upon  us 
to  examine  it,  and  to  ascertain  how  far  it  goes  to  settle  the  point 
uuiler  discussion.  Before  examining  the  particular  cases  re- 
f(M-red  to,  we  would  remind  our  readers  that  the  purpose  for 
whicii  they  are  adduced,  is  to  show  that  the  apostles  were 
superior  to  presbyters  in  pov:er  and  rights ;  and  the  alleged 
proof  is,  that  they  administered  discipline.  To  bear  on  the 
case,  therefore,  the  passages  must  prove  not  only  that  iherj 
exercised  discipline,  but,  (1.)  That  they  did  it  as  apostles,  or  in 
virtue  of  the  apostolic  office;  (2.)  That  tiieydid  it  in  churches 
where  there  were  presbyters  ;  and,  (3.)  That  presbyters  never 
administered  discipline  'themselves.  The  second  .point  here 
adverted  to,  is  all  that  the  author  of  the  "Answer"  feels  himself 
called  upon  to  make  out.  (Answer,  pp.  11-13.)  Now  in  regard  to 
this  point  of  the  proof,  we  make  the  following  general  remarks: 
(1.)  There  were  certainly,  in  all,  fourteen  apostles;  and  if  we 
mav  credit  the  writer  of  these  pamphlets,  and  reckon  Timothy, 
and  Barnabas,  and  Sylvanus,  and  Apollos,  and  Andronicus,  and 
Junia,  and  Titus,  and  perhaps  half  a  dozen  others,  there  were 
somewhat  more  than  a  score  invested  with  this  office  ;  yet  it  is 
remarkable,  that  the  only  cases  of  discipline  referred  to,  as  going 
to  prove  the  superiority  of  the  whole  college  of  apostles,  are 
cases  in  which  the  Apostle  Paul  only  was  concerned.  (2.)  There 
are  accoimts  in  the  New  Testament  of  perhaps  some  hundreds 
of  churches;  and  yet,  we  meet  with  no  instance  of  the  kind  of 
discipline  relied  on,  except  in  the  single  churches  of  Corinth 
and  Ephesus.  It  is  incredible,  that  there  should  have  been  no 
other  cases  of  discipline  in  these  churches.  But  if  there  were, 
the  presumption  is,  that  they  were  settled  without  the  interven- 


146  BEVIEW — ANSWER   TO   A    KEVIEW    OF 

tion  of  an  apostle.  (3.)  Tliese  very  cases,  as  we  shall  presently 
show,  were  cases  in  which  Paul  administered  t'.ic  rod  of  discij)]ine 
in  the  churches  where  Titus  and  Timothy, — apostles  also  and 
bishops, — were  present,  by  tiie  showing  of  the  autiior  of  the 
"Answer,"  and  thus  were  acts  of  manifest  disrespect  for  the 
anliiority  of  lliose  prelates.  And  if  the  fact,  that  the  discipline 
was  admniisiered  wliere  tliere  were  presbyters,  (Answer,  pp. 
11,  12-.)  proves  that  tiie  Apostle  w^is  superior  to  them,  the  same 
fact  proves*  tliat  he  was  superior  to  Timothy  and  'I'ilus.  Tiie 
course  of  the  argument  urged  by  the  auiiior  of  ihe  "Answer," 
would  be,  tliat  Paul  was  disposed  to  assume  the  whole  f)0wer 
into  liis  own  liands,  and  to  set  aside  the  claims  alil^e  of  bisliops 
and  presbyters.  It  has  a  very  undesirable  looking  toward  llie 
authority  claimed  by  the  Papacy. 

Tiie  two  cases  alleged  as  proof  that  the  apostles  o«/^had  tlie 
power  of  administering  discipline,  are  those  at  Corinih  and  at 
Epiiesus.  Paul  wrote  fourteen  epistles,  and  wrote  them  to 
eight  cluiBfhes.  In  all  these  epistles,  and  in  all  tiie  numerous 
cliurciies  of  w-hich  he  had  the  charge,  (2  Cor.  xi.  28,  "  the  care 
of  all  the  churches,")  these  are  the  only  instances  in  which  he 
was  called,  so  far  as  appears,  to  exercise  discipline.  We  now 
inquire,  whether  he  did  it  for  the  purpose  of  showing  tliat  the 
apostles  only  had  tiiis  power  ? 

The  first  case  alleged,  is  that  at  Corinth.  "In  1  Cor.  iv. 
19-21,  &c.,  are  recorded  inflictions  and  remissions  of  discipline 
performed  by  an  apostle,  or  thrcritenin,'^s  on  his  part;  alilujugh 
there  must  have  been  elders  at  Ci^rijUh."  (Note  z,  Tract,  p.  12.) 
The  argument  here  is,  that  there  must  have  been  elders  at 
Corinth,  and  yet  that  Paul  interposed  over  their  heads  to  inflict 
discipline.  This  is  the  whole  of  the  argiimcnt.  (See  Answer,  p.  11.) 

In  reply  to  these,  we  observe:  Thai  there  were  elders,  teach- 
ers, ministers,  inslructers  in  Corinth,  we  think  is  placed  beyond 
a  question,  by  the  argument  of  the  "Answer,"  and  by  the  nature 
of  the  case.  This  fact  we  do  not  intend  to  call  in  question. 
The  argument  of  the  "  Answer"  from  this  fact,  we  stale  in  the 
author's  own  words: — 

"  Yet,  without  noticing  these  elders  in  the  matter,  so  far  as  tlie 
epistles  show — though  tliey  doubtless  were  noticed  and  consulted, 
as  much  as  courtesy  and  their  pastoral  standing  made  proper — 
without  putting  the  matter  into  their  hands,  or  even  passing  it 
through  tKeir  hands,  Paul  threatens,  inflicts,  and- remits  discipliiie 
among  the  people  of  their  charge.  This  is  a  '  ministerial'  act. 
And  Paul's  doing  it  himsftlf,  instead  of  committing  it  to  the  elders, 
shows  that  he,  an  apostle,  was  '  superior  to  them  in  ministerial 
power  and  rights.'  "  ,  p.  11. 

Further,  if  there  were  elders  there,  there  wns  an  "  apostle," 
a  prelatical  bishop,  according  to  the  Tract,  there  also.  This  is 
shown  by  a  quotation  from  the  epistle  itself,  relating  to  this  very 
time,  and  in  immediate  connexion  with  the  case  of  discipline, 
(1  Cor,  iv,  17.)    "  For  this  cause,  [that  is,  on  account  of  your 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCKIPTURE.  147 

divided  and  contending  state,]  have  I  sent  unto  yon  Timothens, 
who  is  my  beloved  son,  and  faithful  in  the  Lord,  who  sliall 
brincf  you  into  remembrance  of  my  ways  whicli  be  in  Chhi.st, 
as  I  teach  every  where  in  every  chiircii."  Now,  as  it  will  not 
l)p  protended  by  Episcopalians  that  Tiinotliy  was  not  an  "apos- 
tle,"' and  as  it  is  undeniable  that  he  was  at  that  time  at  Corinth, 
tlie  arffument  will  as  well  apply  to  set  aside  his  right  to  admin- 
ister discipline  in  the  case,  as  that  of  ttie  elders.  Borrowing, 
then,  the  words  of  the  Answer,  we  would  say:  "  Yet  without 
noticing"  this  apostle  "  in  the  matter,  so  Air  as  the  epistles 
show, —  ihougli"  he  was  "doubtless  noticed  and  consulted,  as 
much  as  courtesy  and  his"  apostolical  "standing  made  proper; 
without  putting  the  matter  into"  his  "  hands,  or  even  passinu;  it 
thi-ougli"  his  "hands,  Paul  threatens,  inflicts,  and  remits  disci- 
pline. This  is  a  '  ministerial'  act.  And  Paul's  doing  it  himself, 
instead  of  committing  it  to"  Timotliy,  "shows,  that  lie,  an  apos- 
tle, was  superior  to"  him  "  in  ministerial  power  and  rights." 
Now  no  Episcopalian  will  fail  to  be  at  once  deeply  impressed 
with  the  fallacy  of  this  reasoning,  in  regard  to  tiie  "apostle" 
and  "  bishop"  Timothy.  And  yet,  it  is  manifestly  just  as  perti- 
nent and  forcible  in  his  case,  as  it  is  for  the  purpose  of  the  An- 
swer in  regard  to  the  elders  of  Corinth.  It  cannot  be  pretended 
that  a  difference  existed,  because  the  "elders"  were  per  mane  nth/ 
located  there,  and  Timothv  not  ;  for  the  argument  of  tlie 
"  Tract"  and  the  "  Answer"" is,  tliat  the  apostles  were  superior 
as  apnsfles,  and  therefore  it  made  no  difference  on  this  point, 
whether  thev  were  at" Corinth,  or  at  Crete,  or  at  Anlioch  ;  they 
were  invested  with  the  apostolic  office  every  where.  Oar  con- 
clusion from  this  instance,  and  from  the  fact  which  we  have 
now  stated,  is,  that  there  was  some  peculiarity  in  the  case  at 
Corinth,  whicii  rendered  the  ordinary  exercise  of  discipline  by 
presbyters  ditlicult ;  which  operated  equally  against  any  interfer- 
ence by  Timothy  ;  and  which  called  peculiarly  for  the  inter 
position  of  the  founder  of  the  church,  and  of  an  inspired  apostle, 
—for  one  clothed  with  authority  to  inflict  a  heavy  judgment, 
here  denominated  "delivering  niito  Satan  for  the  destruction  of 
the  flesh,"  (1  Cor.  v.  5,)— a  power  which  could  be  exercised  by 
none  then  in  Corinth.  Our  next  inquiry  is,  whether  liiere  are 
any  reasons  for  this  opinion  ?  The  following  we  believe  satis- 
factory:— 

(1.)  Paul  had -founded  that  church,  (Acts  xviii.  1-11,)  and 
his  interference  in  cases  of  discipline  would  be  regarded  as  pecu- 
liarly proper.  There  would  be  a  natural  and  obvious  deference 
to  the  founder  of  the  church,  which  would  render  such  an  inter- 
position in  tb.e  highest  degree  appropriate.  We  are  confirmed 
in  this  view,  because  he  puts  his  authority  in  tin's  very  case  on 
such  a  fact,  and  on  the  deference  which  was  due  to  him  as  their 
spiritual  fatlier.  1  Cor.  iv.  15  — "For  though  ye  have  ten 
thousand  instructers  in  (^uRis-r.  yet  have  ye  not  many  KArnr.Hs; 
for  in  Cnaisr  .Iesus  /iiave  begotten  you  tiirough  the  Gospel." 


148  REVIEW — ANSWER   TO   A   REVIEW    OP 

(2.)  The  circumstances  of  the  church  at  Corinth  were  such, 
evidejitly,  as  to  render  the  ordinary  exercise  of  discipline  by 
their  own  elders  impossible.  'JMiey  were  distracted  ;  were  renl 
into  parlies  ;  were  engaged  in  violent  contention  ;  and  the 
aiitliority,  therefore,  of  one  portion  of  the  "teachers,"  and 
"  inslructers,"  wonld  be  disregarded  by  the  other.  Tims  no 
united  sentence  could  be  agreed  upon  ;  and  no  judgment  of  a 
party  could  rcitore  peace.  An  attempt  to  exercise  discipline 
wonld  only  enkindle  parly  animosity,  and  produce  strife.  (See 
chap.  i.  11-17.)  So  great,  evidently,  was  the  conlenlion,  and  so 
liopeless  the  task  of  allaying  it  by  any  ordinar)'  means,  that 
even  T'imotfu/,  whom  Panl  had  sent  for  the  express  purpose 
of  bringing  them  into  remembrance  of  his  ways,  (1  Cor.  iv.  17,) 
conid  have  no  hope,  by  his  own  interference,  of  allaying  it. 
It  was  natural  that  it  should  be  referred  to  the  founder  of  the 
church,  and  to  one  who  had  llie  power  of  punishing  ihe  offender. 

(3.)  It  is  material  to  remark,  that  this  was  not  an  ordinary 
case  of  discipline.  It  was  one  that  required  the  severest  exer- 
cise of  anliiority,  and  in  a  form  which  was  lodged  only  with 
those  intrusted  with  the  power  of  inflicting  disease,  or,  as  it 
is  termed,  "  of  delivering  to  Satan  for  the  destruction  of  the 
flesh."  (1  Cor.  v.  5.)  Such  cases  wonld  inevitably  devolve  upon 
the  Apostles,  as  clothed  with  miraculous  power ;  and  such, 
beyond  ail  controversy,  was  this  case.  It  therefore  proves 
nothing  about  the  ordinary  mode  of  administering  discipline. 
This  case  had  readied  to  such  a  degree  of  enormity;  it  liad 
been  suffered  to  remain  so  long;  it  had  become  so  aggravated, 
that  it  was  necessary  to  interpose  in  this  awful  manner,  and  to 
decide  it.     Yet, 

(4.)  The  Aposlle  supposes  that  ihey  ought  to  liave  exercised 
the  usual  discipline  themselves.  This  is  evident,  we  think, 
from  a  comparison  of  the  following  passages  :  1  Cor.  v.  9,  10,  11, 
12,  with  V.  2.  In  these  verses  it  is  supposed,  tliat  they  did  them- 
selves usually  exercise  disciplme.  Paul  (verse  9)  gave  them 
the  general  direction,  not  to  keep  company  with  fornicators; 
that  is,  to  exercise  discipline  on  those  wlio  did.  In  verse  11,  he 
asks  them,  in  a  manner  showing  that  the  affirmative  answer  to 
the  question  expressed  their  usual  practice,  whether  they  did  not 
"judge  tliose  tliat  were  within?"  that  is,  whether  they  did  not  ordi- 
narily exercise  discipline  in  the  church  ?  And  in  verse  2,  he  sup- 
poses that  it  ought  to  have  been  done  in  this  c*ise;  and  as  it  had 
not  been  done  by  them,  and  the  affair  had  assumed  special  enor- 
mity, he  exercised  the  miraculous  power  intrusted  to  him,  by 
inflicting  on  the  offender  a  grievous  disease.  (Verses  4,  5;  comp. 
1  Cor.  xi.  30.) 

(5.)  It  is  evident  that  other  churches  did,  in  ordinary  cases, 
exercise  discipline  without  the  intervention  of  an  apostle.  Thus 
tlie  church  in  Thessalonica,  where  J^piscopacy,  with  all  its  zeal, 
has  never  been  able  even  to  conjecture  that  there  was  a  diocesan 
bishop,  was  directed  to  exercise  discipline  in  any  instance  where 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BV    SCRIPTURE.  149 

the  command  of  the  inspired  Apostle  was  not  obeyed.  (2Thess. 
iii.  14.)     We  sliall  soon  make  tliis  point  inconteslible. 

(6.)  The  circumstances  of  the  early  churches  were  such  as  to 
make  this  apostolic  intervention  proper,  and  even  indispensable, 
without  supposing  that  it  was  to  he  a  permanent  arrangement. 
They  were  ignorant  and  feeble.  They  had  had  little  opportunity 
of  learning  the  nature  of  Christianity.  In  most  cases,  their  found- 
ers were  with  them  but  a  few  weeks,  and  then  left  them  imder 
the  care  of  elders  ordained  from  among  t!u>inselves.  (Comp.  Acts 
xiii.  xiv.  et  passim.)  Those  elders  would  be  poorly  qualified 
to  discharge  the  functions  of  their  office  ;  and  tliey  would  be 
but  little  elevated,  in  character  and  learning,  above  the  mass  of 
the  people.  The  churches  must  be  imperfectly  organized;  imac- 
custdined  to  rigid  discipline;  exposed  to  many  temptations; 
easily  drawn  into  sin;  and  subject  to  great  agitation  and  excite- 
ment. Even  a  great  many  subjects  which  may  now  be  consi- 
dered as  settled,  in  morals  and  religion,  would  appear  to  them  open 
for  debate  ;  and  parties,  as  at  Corinth,  would  easily  be  formed. 
(Comp.  Ads  xiv.  xv. ;  Rom.  xiv.;  1  Cor.  viii.)  In  these  circum- 
stances, iiow  natural  was  it  for  these  churches  to  look  for  direc- 
tion to  the  inspired  men  who  had  founded  them  ?  and  how 
natural,  that  such  persons  should  interpose  and  settle  important 
and  difTicnlt  cases  of  discipline?  And  after  these  obvious 
considerations,  are  we  to  suppose  that  the  fact  that  the  Apostle 
Paul,  in  two  cases,  and  two  such  cases  only  are  recorded,  exer- 
cised an  extraordinary  act  of  discipline,  is  to  be  regarded  as 
proof  that  this  power  appertained  onltj  to  the  apostolic  office, 
and  was  to  be  a  permanent  arrangement  in  the  Church  ?  We 
confess  our  'amazement,'  that  but  iico  cases  of  apostolic  inter- 
ference are  mentioned  during  the  long  and  active  life  of  Paid  ; 
and  we  regard  this  as  some  evidence  that  the  churches  were 
expected  to  exercise  discipline,  and  actually  did  so,  on  their  own 
members. 

(7.)  We  are  confirmed  in  our  views  on  this  point  from  what 
is  known  to  take  place  in  organizing  churches  in  heathea  coun- 
tries at  the  present  day.  Since  we  commenced  this  article  we 
were  conversing  with  one  of  the  American  missionaries  station- 
ed at  Ceylon.*  In  the  course  of  the  conversation  he  incidentally 
remarked  that  the  missionaries  were  obliged  to  retain  the  exer- 
cise of  discipliue  in  their  own  hands;  and  that,  althougli  the 
mission  had  been  established  more  than  fifteen  years,  yet  the 
exercise  of  discipline  had  never  been  intrusted  to  the  native 
converts.  He  further  observed,  that  the  missionaries  had  been 
endeavoring  to  find  persons  to  whom  they  could  intrust  the  dis- 
cipline of  the  church,  as  elders,  but  that  as  yet  they  had  not  found 
one.  The  native  converts  were  still  ignorant  of  the  laws  of 
Christianity  ;  they  hud  so  little  influence  in  the  church  ;  they 
were  so  partial  to  each  other,  even  when  in  fault ;  that  thus  far, 

*  Rev.  Mr.  Winelow. 

13* 


150  REVIEW — ANSWER   TO   A   REVIEW    OF 

discipline,  though  somewhat  frequent  acts  of  discipline  were 
necessary,  was  retained  in  the  iiands  of  the  raissionaries.  Sub- 
stantially the  same  tiling  must  have  occurred  in  the  early 
churches  in  Asia  Minor,  in  Syria  and  Greece.  Will  Dr.  Onder- 
donk  infer,  that  because  Mr.  Winslow,  Mr.  Poor,  and  Dr.  Scud- 
der,  in  Ceylon,  have  found  it  necessary  to  retain  the  power  of 
administering  discipline,  that  therefore  they  are  diocesan  bish- 
ops, and  tluit  they  do  not  contemplate  that  the  chiUThes  in  Cey- 
lon sliall  be  other  tlian  prelalical  ?  If  not,  his  argument  in  the 
case  of  the  church  in  Corinth  can  be  allowed  no  weight. 

We  have  now  done  with  this  instance  of  discipline.  We 
nave  shown  that  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case  can  be 
accounted  for,  without  any  such  conclusion  as  that  to  which  the 
author  of  the  Tract  is  desirous  to  conduct  it.  We  turn,  there- 
fore, to  his  other  case  ctf  discipline  in  the  church  at  P]phesus. 

'J'hecuse  is  thus  stated  in  1  Tim.  i.20 — "Of  whom  is  Hymeueus 
and  Alexander;  whom  /  have  delivered  unto  Saton,  that  they 
may  learn  not  to  blaspheme."  His  argument  is,  that  "it  is  the 
Apostle  who  inflicts  the  discipline;  tlie  elders  do  not  appear  in 
the  matter.  And  discipline  is  a  ministerial  function,  and  excom- 
munication its  highest  exercise."  (Answer,  p.  13.)  In  reply  to 
this  case,  we  make  the  following  observations. 

(1.)  It  occurs  in  a  charge  to  Timothy, — Timothy,  on  the 
supposition  of  Episcopalians,  an  apostle  co-ordinate  wilii  Paul 
himself;  'J'imothy,  prelate  of  Ephesns.  If  Timothy  was  an 
apostle  and  diocesan  bishop,  and  if  the  exercise  of  discipline 
pprlained  to  an  afiostle  and  bishop,  why  did  Paul  take  the  matter 
into  his  own  hands'?  Why  not  refer  it  to  Timothy,  and  repose 
sufficient  confidence  in  him  to  believe  that  he  was  competent  to 
fulfil  this  part  of  his  Episcopal  office  ?  Would  it  now  be  regard- 
ed as  courteous,  for  the  bishop  of  Ohio  to  inlerpose  and  inflict 
an  act  of  discipline  on  some  Hymeneus  or  Alexander  of  the 
diocese  of  Pennsylvania  ?  And  would  there  be  as  cordial  sub- 
mission of  the  bishop  of  Pennsylvania,  as  there  was  of  the  bish- 
op of  Ephesus?  If  Timothy  was  at  Ephesns,  and  if  the  case  of 
discipline  occurred  at  the  time  which  Dr.  O.  supposes,  this  case 
appears  to  our  humble  apprehension,  very  much  as  if  Paul 
regarded  Timothy  as  neither  an  apostle  nor  a  prelate. 

(2.)  If  the  exercise  of  tlie  authority  in  this  case  of  discipline 
bv  Paul  proves  that  the  presbyters  at  Ephesus  had  no  right  to 
administer  discipline  ;  for  the  same  reason,  it  proves  that  Timo- 
thy had  not  that  right.  By  the  supposition  of  Episcopalians, 
Timothy  was  there  as  well  as  the  presbyters.  The  assumption 
of  the  authority  by  Paul  proves  as  much  that  it  did  not  belong 
to  Timothy,  as  that  it  did  not  belong  to  the  presbyters. 

(3.)  This  was  a  case  such  as  occurred  at  Corinth.  It  was 
not  an  ordinary  act  of  discipline  ;  it  was  one  which  supposed 
the  infliction  of  the  judgment  of  Gon  by  a  miraculous  agency. 
"Whom  I  have  delivered  unto  Satan,  that  they  may  learn  not 
to  blaspheme."     Compare  this  account  with  the  record  of  the 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  151 

case  in  Corintli,  (1  Cor.  v.  5,)  and  it  is  evident  that  this  was 
not  an  ordinary  act  of  discipline,  but  was  snch  as  implied  the 
direct  infliction  of  the  judiinieiit  of  the  Ahnitjiuy.  That  snch 
inflictions  were  inlrusied  lo  the  hands  of  the  Apostles  we  admit; 
and  that  Panl,  not  Timothy,  inflicted  tiiis,  proves  that  the  latter 
was  neither  an  aposlle  nor  a  prelate. 

(4.)  Dr.  Onderdonk  supposes  tiiat  this  occurred  at  Ephesus, 
and  while  Timotliy  was  there.  IJut  what  evidence  is  there  of 
this  ?  It  is  neitiier  aflirmed  liiat  the  transaction  was  at  Ephe- 
sus, nor  that  Tinioliiy  was  there.  His  argument  proceeds  on 
the  assumption,  tliat  Timotliy  was  bishop  there  when  this  epis- 
tle was  written,  and  that  the  case  of  discipline  occurred  there. 
And  the  proi//"  of  this,  would  probal)!}''  be  the  subscription  at  the 
end  of  the  secoml  epistle,  and  the  "  tradition  of  the  elders." 
But  that  snbscri|)iion  has  no  authority  ;  and  it  is  not  to  be 
assumed,  but  pi-uvcil,  that  Timothy  was  there  in  the  capacity  of 
a  prelate,  or  tiiere  at  all  when  tliis  epistle  was  written  to  him. 
'J'iie  demonstration  that  a  bishop  only  exercised  discipline,  it 
must  be  admitted,  rests  on  slender  grounds,  if  this  be  ali. 

(5.)  But  if  this  case  did  occur  at  Ephesus,  wiuit  evidence  is 
there,  that  it  occurred  at  the  time  that  Bisliop  Onderdonk  sup- 
poses? The  account  in  the  epistle  to  Timothy  by  no  means 
fixt^s  the  time  of  the  transaction.  "  Whom  I  have  delivered 
(:r„pfou<a)  uulo  Satau,"  &c.  It  was  already  done  ;  and  the  pre- 
sumption is,  that  it  was  done  when  Paul  was  himself  present 
witli  tlieui.  It  is  morally  certain  that  it  was  nol  an  act  of  disci- 
pline that  was  then  to  he  done. 

Our  readers  have  now  the  whole  case  before  them.  Episco- 
pacy aflirms,  that  prelates  onlij  have  the  power  of  administering 
discipline.  It  affirms  that  the  churclies  are  prohibited  from 
exercising  it  on  their  own  members;  that  those  appointed  to 
preach  the  Gospel,  to  administer  the  sacraments,  and  to  be  pas- 
tors of  the  flock,  and  who  may  therefore  be  supposed  to  under- 
stand the  cases  of  discipline,  and  best  qualified  lo  administer  it, 
have  no  right  to  exercise  this  act  of  government  over  their  own 
members;  but  that  this  exclusive  prerogative  belongs  to  a 
stranger,  and  a  foreigner,  a  prelalical  bishop,  whom  the  church- 
es seldom  see.  and  who  must  be  in  a  great  degree  unacquainted 
with  their  peculiar  wants  and  character.  All  power  of  disei- 
pliue  in  an  entire  diocese  of  some  hundreds  of  churches,  is  to  be 
taken  aw  ay  from  llie  members  themselves,  and  from  the  pastors, 
and  lodged  in  strange  hands,  and  committed  to  a  solilarv,  iiide- 
piMident  man,  who,  from  the  natio'e  of  the  circnmstances,  can 
iiave  little  acquaintance  with  the  case,  and  possess  few  of  the 
qualifications  requisite  for  the  intelligent  performance  of  this 
duly.  Anii  does  the  reader  ask,  What  is  the  authority  for  this 
assumption  of  power?  Why  are  the  churches  and  their  pastors 
disrr^bed  of  this  oflice,  and  reduced  to  the  condition  of  humble 
dependents  at  the  feet  of  the  prelate?  Let  him,  in  astonish- 
ment, learn.     It  is  not  because  there  is  any  command,  to  this 


152  REVIEW — ANSWER   TO   A    REVIEW   OP 

effect  in  the  New  Testament;  it  is  not  because  there  is  any 
declaration,  implying  that  it  tcould  be  so;  it  is  not  by  any 
afllrmation  that  it  ever  tcai;  so.  This  is  tiie  reason,  and  this  is 
all: — The  Apostle  Paul  in  two  cases,  and  in  both  instances  ovet 
the  heads  of  presbyters,  (and  over  the  head  of  Bishop  Timothy, 
too,)  delivered  men  "to  Satan  for  the  destruction  of  the  flesh, 
that  they  might  learn  not  to  blaspheme ;"  and,  therefore. 
Bishop  Onderdonk,  and  Bishop  Griswold,  and  Bisliop  Doane, 
only  iiave  power  to  administer  discipline  in  all  the  ciuirciies  in 
Pennsylvania,  and  in  the  Eastern  Diocese,  and  in  New-Jersey  ; 
and,  THEREFORE,  all  the  acts  of  discipline  exercised  by  Presbyte- 
rians, Methodists,  Baptists,  &c.,  in  Pennsylvania  and  New- 
Jersey,  and  by  the  Congregationalists  of  New-England,  are  null 
and  roid.  The  disposal  of  such  antecedents  and  consequents, 
may  be  safely  left  to  all  who  hold,  that  "no  argument  is  worth 
taking  into  the  account,  that  has  not  a  clear  and  palpable  bear- 
ing on  the  naked  topic, — the  scriptural  evidence  of  Episcopacy." 
(Tract,  p.  3.) 

But  we  have  not  done  with  this  subject.  We  are  now  prepared 
to  show,  not  only  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  apostles 
exclusively  exercised  discipline,  but  that  there  is  positive  proof 
that  all  the  acts  of  discipline  were  in  fact  exercised  by  the  pres- 
byters of  the  churches.  To  put  this  matter  to  rest,  we  adduce 
the  following  passages  of  Scripture: 

Acts  XX.  17,  28 — "From  Miletus,  Paul  sent  to  Epliesus,  and 
called  for  tlie  presbyters  of  the  cliurch,  and  said  unto  them  : 
Take  heed  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock  over  which  the 
Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  bishops,  {linaKdvovi)  to  feed,  {-Koiixaivuv 
lik"e  good  sheplierds,  to  provide  for,  watch  over,  and  govern,) 
the  church  of  God."  It  would  be  easy  to  show,  that  the  word 
translated  yeerZ  includes  the  whole  duty  which  a  shepherd  exer- 
cises over  his  flock,  including  all  that  is  needful  in  the  super- 
vision, government,  and  defence  of  those  under  his  care.  Proof 
of  this  may  be  found  in  the  following  passages  of  tiie  New 
Testament,  where  the  word  occurs  in  the  sense  of  ruling,  or 
governing,  including  of  course  the  exercise  of  discipline;  for 
how  can  there  be  government,  unless  there  is  authority  for 
punishing  offenders?  Matt.  ii.  6;  John  xxi.  16;  1  Pet.  v.  2; 
Rev.  ii.  27.  "And  he  shall  rule  them  {minavii  airovs)  with  a  rod 
of  iron;"  an  expression  which  will  be  allowed  to  imply  the 
exercise  of  discipline.  Rev.  xii.  5;  xix.  15.  Comp.  Ps.  ii.  9; 
xxiii.  1  ;  xxvii.  12 ;  xlvii.  13.  And  the  Iliad  of  Homer  may  be 
consulted,  passim,  for  this  use  of  the  word.  See  particularly^ 
I.  263 ;  II.  85. 

1  Pet.  v.  2,  3  —  "The  presbyters  who  are  among  you  I 
exhort,  who  am  also  a  presbyter.  Feed  (roi^a'i/art)  the  flock  of 
God  which  is  among  yon,  taking  the  oversight  (eTKTKondwTSi  dis- 
charging the  duty  of  bishops,)  thereof,  not  by  constraint,  but  will- 
ingly," &c.  Here  the  very  work  which  is  claimed  for  prelates, 
is  enjoined  on  presbyters;  the  very  name  which  prelates  assume, 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE.  153 

is  ^iven  to  presbytprs;  and  Peter  ranks  himself  as  on  a.  level 
icith  them  in  the  office  nf  exercising  discipline,  or  in  the  go c em- 
inent nf  the  churc/i.  It  is  perfectly  obvious,  that  the  presbyters 
at  Epliesiis,  and  the  presbyters  wiiom  Peter  addressed,  were 
intrnsted  with  tlie  pastoral  care  to  the  fullest  extent.  It  is 
ol)vions,  tliat  they  were  reqnired  to  engage  in  all  the  work  reqni- 
site  in  instrncling,  directing,  and  governing  tlie  flock.  And  it 
is  as  obvious,  that  they  were  intrusted  with  a  power  and  an 
autiiority  in  this  business,  wiih  which  presl>yters  are  not  intrust- 
ed by  the  canons  of  the  Episcopal  Cliurch.  "NVe  respectfully 
ask,  \Vliether  the  bisliop  of  Pennsylvania,  or  New-Jersey,  would 
now  take  1  Pet.  v.  2,  3,  for  a  text,  and  address  the  "  priests,"  or 
"  second  order  of  clergy,"  in  tiiese  words,  without  considerable 
qtuilification — "  The  presbyters  who  are  among  you  I  exhort, 
who  am  also  a  presbyter.  Peed  (Troifiarurc)  tiie  flock  of  God, 
IvtcKovovvTef  discharging  the  dutj^  of  bishops  (tver  it,  not  by  con- 
straint, neither  as  being  lords  over  God's  herit/rge. 

Ileb.  xiii.7 — '-Remember  lliem  which  have  the  rule  over  you: 
tSi'  tiyovfihwv  f/ioiv,  YOUR  RCi.ERs."  Verse  17 — "  Obey  tliem  that 
have  the  rule  over  you."  {n€'i0cadtTo7n',yovfiivoifvvS>f-)  That  bisli- 
ops  are  here  referred  to,  no  one  will  pretend.  Yet  the  ofiice  of 
riding  certainly  implies  that  kind  of  government  which  is  con- 
cerned in  the  administration  of  discipline. 

1  Tliess.  V.  12 — "We  beseech  you,  brethren,  to  know  them 
which  labor  among  you,  and  ar'e  over  you  in  the  Lord."  {koX 

■xpotara^iiiovi  hfi^v  h  Kvolu,.  )       1  Tim.  V.  17 — "  Let  the  PRESBYTERS  that 

rule  well  (irpoiaTwrti)  be  cotmted  worthy  of  dmible  honor." 
Tliere  can  be  no  question  that  these  passages  are  applied  to 
presbyters.  We  come,  then,  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  terms 
wiiich  properly  denote  government  and  discipline,  and  on 
which  alone  any  claim  for  the  exercise  of  authority  can  be 
•founded, — the  terms  expressive  of  governing,  of  feeiiing,  of 
ruling,  of  taking  the  oversight,  are  all  applied  to  presbyters  ;  that 
the  churches  are  reqnired  to  submit  to  Ihem  in  the  exercise  of 
that  office:  and  that  the  very  term  dcmniucr  Episcopal  jnris- 
dictinn,  is  applied  to  them  also.  We  ask  for  a  solitary  passage 
wiiich  directs  apf)Stles,  or  prelates,  to  administer  discipline;  and 
we  leave  the  case  of  discipline,  therefore,  to  the  common  sense 
of  those  who  read  the  New  Testament,  and  who  believe  thai 
presbyters  had  any  duties  to  perform. 

We  have  now  examined  tiie  essential  point  in  Episcopacy; 
for,  if  the  claims  which  are  arrogated  for  bishops  are  imfounded, 
the  system,  as  a  system,  is  destroyed.  We  have  examined  the 
solitary  passage  urged  directly  in  its  favor,  "  tiie  apostles  and 
elders,"  "the  aposlles,  ajid  elders,  and  brethren  ;"  and  the  claims 
set  up  in  favor  of  their  exclusive  right  to  adniinister  discifjline  ; 
and,  if  we  mistake  not,  we  have  shown,  that  hitherto  so  stupend- 
ous claims  have  never  been  reared  on  so  narrow  a  basis. 

The  next  point  whicli  it  is  indispensable  for  Episcopalians  to 
make  out  from  tiie  Bible,  is,  that  it  was  intended,  that  the  supe- 


154  REVIEW — ANSWER   TO    A    RtlVIEW    OF 

riority  in  ministerial  rank  and  poioer,  should  be  a  permanent 
arrana-cment.  This,  it  will  be  perceived,  is  a  distinct  and  inde- 
pendent inqniry.  It  by  no  means  follows  of  necessity,  even  if 
all  tliat  the  Episcopalians  claim  for  tiie  apostles  were  conceded  ; 
for  it  miglit  be  true  that  the  apostles  had  this  superiority,  and  yet 
tliat  it  was  designed  merely  as  a  temporary  arrangement.  As  tlie 
"Answer"  has  added  nothing  material  to  the  argument  of  tiie 
Tract,  on  tliis  subject,  we  shall  not  long  be  detained  on  this 
point.  The  sole  argument  in  the  "  Tract"  is  drawn  from  the 
chiim  that  Timothy  was  bishop  of  Epiiesus,  and  Titus  of  Crete; 
and  that  the  "  angels"  of  tiie  seven  churches  were  prelatical 
bisliops.  (pp.  23-29.)  In  our  review,  we  examined  these  seve- 
ral claims  at  length.  (Review,  pp.  17-31.)  As  the  writer  of 
the  Answer  has  not  thought  proper  to  notice  our  argument 
here,  we  are  left  to  the  presumption,  that  an  obvious  or  salisi'ac- 
lory  reply  was  not  at  Isand.  Tlie  train  of  our  reasoning,  tlien, 
we  shall  take  the  liberty  of  regarding  as  unbroken  and  iintoucli- 
ed.  The  only  appearance  of  argument  on  this  subject,  in  tlie 
Answer,  is  found  on  p.  14,  and  it  is  this:  that  its  author  sup- 
poses our  argument  to  have  been,  that  Timothy  and  Titus  had 
a  temporary  and  extraordinary  office,  because  they  were  "mi- 
gratory ;"  and,  as  many  of  the  presbyters, — Apollos,  for  exam- 
ple,— were  migratory,  hence  it  would  follow,  that  the  office  of 
presbyter,  also,  was  temporary.  Now,  in  reply  to  this,  we 
observe,  that  although  we  did  affirm  the  appointnient  of  Timo- 
thy and  Titus  to  have  been  "temporary,"  yet  we  were  not  so 
weak  as  to  suppose  that  it  was  because  they  were  migratory. 
That  this  fact  indicated  that  they  had  not  a  pernicment  pre- 
latical office,  we  assuredly  did,  and  still  do,  believe.  But  we 
showed, — in  a  manner  w'hich  we  marvel  the  author  of  the  An- 
swer did  not  notice,— *that  Timothy  was  sent  to  Ephesus  for  a 
special  purpose,  and  that  he  was  to  execute  that  office  oidij  \m\i\ 
Paul  returned.  (Review,  pp.  22,  24.  1  Tim.  i.  3;  iv.  13;  1  Tim. 
iii.  14,  15.)  The  same  thing  we  showed,  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment, to  be  tlie  case  with  regard  to  Titus.  (Review,  p.  26.  See 
Titus,  i.  0-9  ;  iii.  10,  12.)  We  never  so  far  forgot  ourselves,  as 
to  suppose  that  because  Timotliy  and  Titus  were  "  migratory," 
that,  tiierefore,  they  were  not  bisliops.  We  put  the  matter  on 
wholly  different  ground  ;  and  in  tiie  course  of  our  argument,  we 
quoted  no  less  i\\m\  forty-six  passages  of  the  New  Testament, 
containing,  we  believe,  all  that  can  be  supposed  to  bear  on  tiie 
point.  W'e  cannot  withliold  the  expressions  of  our  "amaze- 
ment," that  an  author,  whose  express  object  was  to  "  test  Epis- 
copacy by  Scripture,"  should  have  left  unnoticed  this  argument. 
Never  was  tliere  invented  a  shorter  and  more  convenient  mode 
of  avoiding  such  an  argument,  tiian  bysaying  of  something  which 
we  never  intended  to  urge,  that  tiie  whole  of  it  was  founded  on 
the  fact  of  their  being  "  migratory."  We  would  now  remind 
the  author  that  our  argument  was  not  of  such  a  character;  but  it 
was,  (1.)  That  Timothy  is  not  even  called  an  apostle  ;  (2.)  That 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  155 

lie  IS  expressly  distinguislied  from  the  apostles  ;  (3.)  That 
Ihere  is  no  evidenre  llmt  lie  was  bishop  of  Epiiesiis;  (4.)  That 
the  HcripliK-e  affirms  lie  was  sent  to  Epiiesus  for  a  special 
ami  lein})orari/'\iy\':\w^L'  ;  (Review,  p.  22;)  and,  (5.)  'J'iiat  the 
epistles  lo  Timulliy  contain  full  proof  (if  ihe  falsciiood  of  any- 
such  suppa^^ili()n  as  liial  ho  was  a  prelatical  bisiiop  ;  hecanso 
(r/)  liiere  are  but  two  orders  of  officers  in  tlu;  ciiurch,  spoken  of 
in  tliose  epistles  ;  {h)  tlicy  contain  no  description  of  his  own 
ollice  as  a  prelate;  (r)  they  contain  full  and  explicit  directions 
on  a  oreat  variety  of  other  topics,  of  far  less  importance  than 
the  oflice  which,  accordinsr  to  Episcopacy,  was  to  constitute  the 
very  pecnUarity  of  the  church  ;  and  not  a  word  respectins  his 
brother  bishops,  then  existing,  or  any  inlinialion  that  such  an 
order  of  men  ever  would  exist. 

In  res;ii"d  to  Titus,  we  proved,  (1.)  That  he  was  left  in  Crete, 
for  Ihe'special  purpose  of  completing  a  work  which  Paul  had 
beenn  ;  (2.)  That  Paul  gave  him  express  directions,  when  he 
had  done  that,  lo  come  to  him  ;  and,  (3.)  That  he  obeyed  tlie 
command,  left  Crete,  and  b(!came  the  travelling  companion  of 
Paul ;  and  that  there  is  not  the  sliglitest  reason  to  suppose,  that 
he  ever  returned  lo  Crete. 

In  regard  to  the  "  angels''  of  the  seven  churches,  we  showed, 
that  the  whole  .of  Dr.  Onderdonk's  argument  was  a  mere 
assfPiiption,  that  there  was  an  inferior  body  of  llie  "clergy  at 
large  ;"  that  there  were  in  each  of  those  cities  more  churclies  than 
one. — a  fact  which  should  be  proved,  not  assumed, — also,  that 
the  St  vie  of  the  address  to  the  '•  angel,"  was  that  of  the  "  angel 
of  the  church, ^^  evidently  referring  to  an  individual  congrega- 
tion, and  not  to  such  a  group  of  chnrches  as  constitute  a  modern 
diocese;  and  that  the  application  of  the  term  "angel,"  to  the 
pastor  of  a  single  church,  was  mncli  more  obvious,  and  much 
the  more  probable  supposition,  than  to  "the  formal,  un frequent, 
and  in  many  instances,  stately  and  pompous  visitations  of  a 
diocesan  bisliop."  (Review,  pp.  27-30.) 

To  this  arf,nimeni  there  is  no  reply,  except  by  an  assumption 
that  Timotliy  was" bishop  of  Ephesus;  tiiat  the  same  thing  must 
be  j)resumed'  to  exist  in  the  year  96;  and  that  the  "elders"  at 
Ephesus  being  there  also,  and  being  ministers,  any  direction  to 
the  "angel,"  must  suppose  that  he  was  superior  to  the  presby- 
ters. (Answer,  p.  17.)  Now  the  whole  of  this  argument  pro- 
ceeds on  ttie  supposition  tliat  the  elders  at  Ephesus  were 
ordained  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  a  distinct  raidv  of  the  clergy, 
and  sustaining  the  same  olhce  as  the  "second  order"  in  tlie 
Episcopal  Church.  But  this  is  assinning  the  very  point  mi 
(Irhitte.  In  our  review,  we  showed,  (p.  23,)  that  all  ihe  facts  in 
the  case  of  the  elders  at  Epiiesus,  (Acts  xx.  17,  &c.,)  are  met 
by  the  supposition  that  they  were  ruling  elders,  or  persons 
appointed  to  govern,  guide,  and  secure,  the  spiritual  welfare  of 
till'  church.  Our  argimient  is,  (1.)  That  Dr.  ().  admits,  that  the 
word  rendered  "feed,"  {iroiiiaivuv)  may  mean  lo  rule:    (Tract, 


156  REVIEW — ANSWER  TO  A  REVIEW  OF 

pp.  24,  37.)  (2.)  That  tlie  idea  of  rvling,  is  the  one  which  is 
there  specificaUi/  dwelt  on.  Tliat  he  directs  them  to  "  feed,"  or 
exercise  the  office  of  a  shepherd  over  tliem,  that  is,  to  giiard, 
defend,  provide  for  them,  as  a  shepherd  does,  in  the  care  of  his 
flock.  He  directs  tiiem  to  watch  against  the  grievous  wolves 
which  should  come  in,  and  against  tliose  who  should  rise  up 
from  among  themselves,  to  secure  parties,  &c.  (3.)  There  is 
jio  coiMisel  given  them  about  the  proper  mode  of  administering 
tlie  sacraments,  tlie  peculiar  duty  of  the  "second  order"  of 
clergy.  (4.)  There  is  no  expression  of  lamentation,  that  Ihey 
had  not  a  prelatical  bishop;  or  any  intimalion  tiiat  ihey  would 
soon  be  furnished  with  one.  (5.)  It  is  evidently  implied,  liiat 
the  number  of  these  elders  was  considerable.  They  are  address- 
ed as  such  ;  and  yet  they  are  addressed  as  in  charge  of  one 
'•  llock,"  over  which  Ihey  liad  been  placed.  Now  it  is  incredi- 
ble, tliat  any  considerable  body  of  the  "second  order  of  clergy" 
should  have  been  ordained  in  an  infant  church  like  Epiiesus. 
And  it  is  equally  incredible,  that  //"Paul  had  so  ordained  them, 
he  should  have  set  them  over  one  flock,  in  a  single  city, — colle- 
giate "  rectors"  in  a  single  church  in  Ephesns, — under  a  "  dio- 
cesan" also,  of  the  single  "flock,"  or  church  ;  a  diocesan  not 
then  present,  and  concerning  whom  not  the  slightest  hint  was 
dropped  by  Paul,  either  of  lamentation  or  promise.  So  that,  on 
the  whole,  one  knows  not  at  which  to  be  most  surprised, -•the 
number  of  assumption.'}  indispi  usable  to  the  purpose  of  "en- 
throning" the  bishop  Timot'.iy  at  Ephesns,  or  the  singular 
coolness  wilii  which  Episcopalians  urge  all  these  assumptions, 
as  if  ihev  were  grave  matters  of  historical  record. 

In  reference  to  the  term  "angel,"  as  used  in  the  Apocalypse, 
we  have  only  to  remark  further,  that  the  interpretation  which 
makes  it  refer  to  a  prelatical  bishop,  is  so  unnatural  and  forced, 
that  Episcopalians  are,  many  of  them,  iheiriselves  compelled  to 
aban:lon  it.  Tluis  Stillingfleet,  than  whom  an  abler  man,  and 
one  whose  f)raise  is  hioher  in  Episcopal  churches,  is  not  to  be 
foimd  among  the  advocates  of  prelacy,  says  of  these  angels — "If 
many  things  in  the  epistles  be  denoted  to  the  angels,  but  yet  so 
as  to  concern  the  whole  body,  then,  of  necessity,  the  angel 
mtist  be  taken  as  a  representative  of  the  whole  body  ;  and  then, 
Avhy  may  not  the  word  angel  be  taken  by  way  of  representa- 
tion of  tiie  iiody  itself,  either  of  the  whole  church,  or,  which  is 
far  more  probable,  of  the  cons^ssors,  or  order  of  presbyters  in 
that  ciiurch  ?  We  see  what  miserable,  unaccountable  arguments 
those  are,  which  are  brought  for  any  kind  of  government,  from 
metaphorical  or  ambiguous  expressions,  or  names  promiscuously 
used."  Ircnicnm. 

In  regard  to  this  second  point,  which  it  is  incumbent  on  Epis- 
copalians to  make  out,  we  are  now  prepared  to  estimate  the 
force  of  these  arguments.  The  case  stands  thus.  (1.)  There  is 
no  command  in  the  New  Testament,  to  the  Apostles,  to  transmit 
the  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic  office.     If  there  had  been,  the 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE.  157 

industry  of  Dr.  Onderdonk  would  have  called  it  to  our  attention. 
If  the  peculiarity  of  the  office  was  to  be  transmitted,  it  was 
required  that  such  a  command  should  be  given.     (2.)  There  is 
no  affirmation  l!:at  it  would  be  thus  transmitted.     Jf  there  had 
been,   Dr.  O.'s  tract  would   not   have   been  so  barren  on  this 
point.    And  we  ask  him.  wiielher  it  is  credible,  that  the  Apostles 
were  bislinps  of  a  superior  order,  and  that  it  was  designed,  tiuit 
all  the  Church  sliould  be  subject  to  an  order  of  men,  "superior 
in  ministprial  rank  and  power."  deriving  liieir  authority  from 
lh(;  Apostles;  and  yet,  not  ttie  slightest  command  thus  to  trans- 
mit it,  and  not  the  slightest  hint  tliat  it  would  be  done?     We 
Siiy  again,   Credat  Judcens  Apella  !     (3.)  It  was  ?wpos5jWe  that 
the  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic  office  should  he  transmitted. 
We  have  shown,  not  bj'  assumptions,  but  by  a  large  array  of 
passages  of  Scripture,  what  that  peculiarity  was, — to  bear  wit- 
ness to  the  great  events  whicii  went  to  prove  that  Je.sus  was 
the  .Messiah  :  we  liave  been  met  in  this  proof,  by  the  calm  and 
di^;nified  observation,  that  this  was  a  '' showy"  argument ;  and 
we  now  affirm,  that  the  peculiarity  of  that  office,  as  specified  by 
Jkso.s   Christ,    by  the   ciiosen  Apostles,    by  Paul,  and    by  the 
whole   college,    could    not   be  transmitted  ;  that  no  bishop  is, 
or   can    be,  a  witness,    in  the   sense   and  for  the  purpose  for 
which  they  were  originally  designated.    (4.)  We  have  examined 
the  case  of  Timothy,  of  Titus,  and  of  the  angels  of  the  churches, 
— the  slender  basis  on  whicli  the  fabric  of  Episcopal  pretension 
has  been  reared.     We  now  affirm,  (5.)  That,  should  we  admit 
all  that  Episcopalians  claim  on  each  of  these  points,  there  is 
not  the  slightest  proof,  as  a  matter  of  historical  record,  that  the 
Episcopal  office  has  been  transmitted  from  prelate  to  prelate  ; 
but  that  the  pretended  line  has  been  often  broken,  and  that  no 
jury  would  give  a  verdict  to  the  amount  of  five  dollars,  on  proof 
so  slender  as  can  be  adduced   for  the  uninterrupied  succession 
of  prelates.     As  satisfactory  evidence  on  this  point,  we  repeat 
the  following  passage,  contained  in  the  September  number  of 
this  journal: 

"  We  are  informed  by  many  ancient  historians,  and  very 
expressly  by  Bede,  in  his  famous  Ecclesiastical  History,  'That  . 
at  the  request  of  Oswald,  King  of  Northumberland,  certain  pres- 
hi/trrs  came  (in  the  seventh  century)  from  Scotland  into  Eng- 
land, and  ordained  bishops;  that  the  abbot,  and  other  presbyters 
of  tlie  island  of  Hy,  sent  Aydan  for  this  express  purpose, 
dcchiring  him  to  be  worthy  of  the  office  of  bisliop,  and  that  Ik; 
ought  to  be  sent  to  instruct  the  unbelieving  and  the  unlearned.' 
He  informs  us,  that  '  those  presbyters  ordained  him  and  sent 
iiim  to  England  on  this  errand  ;  and  that  Finan,  sent  from 
thf;  same  monastery  in  the  same  island,  succeeded  him  in  the 
Epi.scopal  office,  after  having  been  ordained  by  the  Scottish 
presbyters.' 

"Upon  this  testimony  of  Htide,  Haxter  remarks,  'You  will 
find  that  llif  I'^nglish  had  a  succession  of  bishops  by  i\\(i  Scottish 
11 


158  REVIEW — ANSWER  TO   A  REVIEW   OF 

presbyter\'}  ordination;  and  tliere  is  no  mention  in  Bede  of  any 
dislike  or  scruple  of  tlie  lawfulness  of  tliis  course.'  The  learned 
Dr.  Doddridge  refers  us  to  Bede  and  Jones  to  subslr.nliate  the 
fact  lliat,  'the  ordination  of  English  bishops  cannot  be  traced 
lip  to  the  Church  of  Rome  as  its  original ;  that  in  the  year  6G3, 
the  successors  of  Austin,  the  nonk,  (who  came  over  a".  D.  596,) 
heing  almost  extinct,  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  bishops  were 
of  Scottish  ordination,  by  Aydan  and  Finan,  wlio  came  out  of 
the  Culdee  monastery  of  Columbanus,  and  were  no  more  llian 
inesbyters.'' 

"  And  is  it  verily  so,  that  the  Episcopal  blood  was  thus  early 
and  extensively  contaminated  in  England  ?     Is  it  verily  so,  tliat 
when  the  effects  of  pious  Austin's  labors  had  become  almost 
imperceptible,  the  sinking  Church  was  revived  again  by  sending 
to  Scotland  for  presbyters  to  come  and  ordain  a  multitude  of 
bishops?     Then  Jt  is  verily  a  fact,  that  Presbjterian  ordination 
is  one  of  the  sturdiest  pillars  that  support  the  vast  fabric  of  tiie 
Church  of  England.     No  matter  if  only  ten  bishops  were  thus 
ordained,  the  contamination  (if  it  be  one)  having  been  imparted 
more  than  eleven  hundred  years  ago,   has  had  a  long  time  to 
diffuse   itself,  and  doubtless  has  diffused   itself  so  extensively 
from  bishop  to  bishop,  that  not  a  single  prelate  in  Great  Britain 
can  prove  that  he  has  escaped  the  infection.     For  what  one  of 
them  can  tell  if  he  was  not  consecrated  by  bishops  who  were 
themselves  consecrated  by  bishops,  and  they  by  other  bishops, 
to  whom  all  the  ordaining  power  they  ever  had  was  transmitted 
from  the  presbyters  of  Scotland  7     But  this  is  not  the  whole  of 
the  evil.     As  no  one  bishop  can  trace  his  Episcopal  pedigree 
farther  back  perhaps  than  two  or  three  centuries,  so  he  cannot 
certainly    know   that   any    presbyter   on    whose   head   he    has 
imposed  hands,  has  received  from  him  any  thing  more  than 
Presbyterian  ordination.     Nor  is  tliis   all  the   evil.     The  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  bishops  and  presbyters  in  America  are  in  the 
same  plight ;  for  I  am  told  that  all  their  authority  came  from 
England.     But  as  the  English  bishops  who  gave  it  to  tliem 
could  not  then,  and  cannot  now,  certainly  tell  whence  it  came, 
so  who  knows  but  all  the  Episcopal  clergy  in  the  United  Slates 
of  America   are   originally   indebted   to   the   hands  of  Elder 
Aydan  and  Elder  Finan  for  all  their  ministerial  powers?     I 
tremble  for  all  Protestant  Episcopal  churches   on  both  conti- 
nents, if  Presbyterian  ordination  be  no"!  valid  and  scriptural." 
(pp.  486,  487.) 

One  point  more  in  the  argument  for  Episcopacy  remains.  It 
is,  that  none  but  prelates  ordained.  It  is  incumbent  on  Episco- 
palians to  prove  this,  as  essential  to  their  argument.  For  if 
presbyters  or  elders  exercised  the  office  of  ordaining,  then  tlie 
main  point  claimed  for  the  superiority^  of  bishops  is  unfounded. 
We  aim.  therefore,  to  show  that  there  is  positive  pro'»f  that 
presbyters  did  ordain.  We  have  shown,  in  the  course  of  our 
uij;umenl,  that  they  exercised  the  office  ut  discipline,  one  e-'' thp 


EPISCOPACY  TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE.  159 

things  claimed  peculiarly  for  bishops  ;  we  now  proceed  to  show 
thai  the  office  of  ordaining'  was  one  which  was  {'^trusted  to 
tliem,  and  whicli  they  exercised.  If  this  [)()int  be  made  oui,  it 
follows  still  fiirliier  that  the  peculiarity  of  the  office  of  tiie  apos- 
tles was  not  that  tl)ey  ordained,  and  that  the  cleriiy  of  the  New 
Testament  are  not  divided  into  "  three  orders,"  but  are  equal  in 
ministerial  rank  and  power.  The  argument  is  indeed  complete 
without  this:  for,  imless  Episcopalians  can  show,  by  posiiive 
proof,  the  superiority  of  their  bishops  to  the  right  of  ordination 
and  discipline,  the  parity  of  the  clergy  follows  as  a  matter  of 
course. 

The  writer  of  these  articles  is  a  Presbyterian.  But  the  argu- 
ment does  not  require  that  he  siiould  fro  larsely  into  tlie  proof 
of  his  own  views  on  church  polity.  The  object  is  to  disprove 
Episcopacy.  If  this  is  disproved,  it  follows  that  the  clergy  are 
on  an  equality.  If  it  is  shown  that  the  doctrine  of  the  New 
Testament  is,  that  presbyters  were  to  orduin,  it  is  a  sufficient 
disposal  of  the  "  feeble  claims  of  lay-anlination,"  and  of  all 
other  claims.  It  will  follow,  that  a  valid  ordination  is  that 
which  is  performed  in  accordance  with  the  direction  \.\\^i  pres- 
byters should  ordain.  What  particular  churches  besides  the 
Presbyterian,  accord  in  their  practice  with  the  direction,  it  is  not 
our  business  to  inquire.  It  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose  that  liie 
Prt^byterian  and  Congregational  churches  accord  with  liiat 
requirement,  and  follow  the  direction  of  the  New  Testament  in 
the  ordination  of  their  ministry  by  presbyters,  and  in  tiieir  min- 
isterial equality.  This  is  all  the  reply  that  is  necessary  to  the 
train  of  reflections  in  the  "Answer."  (pp.  5,  6.)  We  liave 
seen,  also,  that  Episcopal  ordination  is  valid,  not  because  it  is 
performed  by  a  prelate,  but  because  it  is,  as  we  remarked, 
(Review,  pp.  32,  33,)  in  fact  a  mere  Presbyterian  perforiuance. 

In   proof  of  the  point  now  before  us,  therefore,  we  adduce 

1  Tim.  iv.  11 — "Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which 
was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  layin<;  on  of  the  liands  ol 
the  presbytery."  Of  this  passage,  which,  to  the  common  sense 
of  mankind,  affirms  the  very  thing  imder  discussion,  it  is  evi- 
dently material  for  Episcojjalians  to  dispose;  or  their  claims  to 
exclusive  rights  and  privileges  are  for  ever  destroyed.  We 
shall,  therefore,  e.vamine  tiie  passage,  and  then  notice  the  objec- 
tions to  its  obiiious  'div^  common  sense  interpretation  alleged  by 
Dr.  Onderdonk. 

We  observe  then,  (1.)  That. the  translation  of  the  passage  is 
fairly  made.  Much  h-arned  criticism  has  been  exhausted,  to 
very  little  purpose,  by  Episcopalians,  to  show,  that  a  ditference 
existed  between  "with,"  (f'fd)  in  iliis  place,  and  "by,"  (Su',)  in 

2  Tim.  i.  6.  It  has  been  said,  "tiiat  sucli  a  distinction  may 
justly  be  regarded  as  intimating  that  tlie  virtue  of  the  ordaining 
act  flowed  from  Paul,  wliile  the  presbytery,  or  the  rest  of  that 
body  if  lie  were  included  in  it,  expressed  only  cow.s-f«/."  (Tract, 
p  22.)     But  it  has  never  been  shown,  nor  can  it  be,  that  the 


160  REVIEW — ANSWER   TO    A   REVIEW    OF 

preposition  "  with"  does  not  fairly  express  tlie  force  of  tlie  ori- 
ginal. Tiie  same  observation  may  be  applied  to  tlie  word,  "  pres- 
bytery," (irpta^vTcphv.)  It  denotes  properly  a  body,  or  assembly 
of  elders,  or  presbyters.  In  Luke  xxii.  66,  it  is  applied  to  the 
body  of  elders  which  composed  the  Sanhedrim,  or  great  council 
of  the  Jews,  and  is  translated  "the  elders  of  the  people:"  to  Trpta- 
PvTipiov  Tov  AuoD.  See  also  Acts  xxii.  5 — "  (he  estate  of  tlie  elders." 
The  word  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament  except 
in  the  passage  under  consideration.  Dr.  Onderdonk  has  endea- 
vored to  sliow  that  it  means  "  the  office  to  which  Timothy  was 
ordained,  not  the  persons  who  ordained  h:m  ;  so  that  tlie  pas- 
sage would  read,  'with  the  laying  on  of  hands  to  confer  the 
presbyternle,''  or  presliytersliip,  or  the  clerical  ofRce ;"  and 
appeals  to  the  authority  of  Grotius  and  Calvin  in  the  case.  (Tract, 
pp.  19,  20.)  In  regard  to  tliis  interpretation  we  observe,  (1.) 
That  if  this  be  correct,  then  it  follows,  that  Timothy  was  not  ati 
opostle,  but  an  elder, — he  was  ordained  to  the  office  of  the  pres- 
byteratr,  or  the  eldership.  Timotliy,  tlien,  is  to  be  laid  out  of 
the  college  of  the  apostles,  and  reduced  to  the  humble  office  of  a 
presbyter.  When  prelacy  is  to  be  establisbed  by  showing  that 
the  office  of  apostles  was  transmitted,  Timothy  is  an  apostle; 
when  it  is  necessary  to  make  another  use  of  this  same  man,  it 
appears  that  he  was  ordained  to  the  preshyterate,  and  Timothy 
becomes  a  humiile  preshj/ter.  But,  (2.)  If  the  word  "  presby- 
tery" (TTpcaPvTipiov)  here  means  the  preshyterate,  and  not  the  per 
sons,  then  it  doubtless  means  the  same  in  the  two  other  places 
where  it  occurs.  In  Luke  xxii.  66,  we  shall  receive  the  informa- 
tion, that  "  the  preshyterate,"  "  the  presbytership,"  or  "  tiie  cleri- 
cal office"  of  the  people,  that  is,  the  body  by  which  tlie  people 
conferred  "the  preshyterate,"  came  together  with  the  scribes, 
&c.  In  Acts  xxii.  .5,  we  shall  be  informed  that  "  the  preshyterate," 
or  "  the  clerical  office,"  would  bear  witness  with  the  high-priest 
to  the  life  of  Paul.  Such  absurdities  show  the  propriety  of 
adhering,  in  interpretation,  to  the  obvious  and  usual  meaning  of 
the  words.  (3.)  The  word  is  fixed  in  its  meaning  in  the  usage 
of  the  Church.  Suicer  (Thesaurus,)  says,  it  denotes  "an  assem- 
bly, congregation,  and  college  of  presbyters  in  tlie  Christian 
Church."  In  all  the  instances  which  he  quotes  from  Theodoret, 
(on  I  Tim.  iv.  14,)  from  Chrysostom,  (Homil.  xiii.  on  this  epis- 
tle,) from  Theophylact,  (in  loco,)  and  from  Ignatius,  (Epis.  to 
Antioch,  and  to  the  Trallians,)  there  is  not  the  slightest  evi- 
dence, that  it  is  ever  used  to  denote  tlie  ofiice,  instead  of  the 
persons,  of  the  presbytery.  (4.)  As  the  opinion  of  Grotius  is 
referred  to  by  Dr.  O.,  we  beg  leave  to  quote  here  a  passage  from 
his  commentary  on  this  place.  "The  custom  was,  that  the 
presbyters  who  were  present  placed  tiieir  hands  on  the  head  of 
the  candidate,  at  the  same  lime  with  the  presiding  officer  of  their 
body,"  curti  ccefus  sui  principe.  "  Where  the  apostles,  or  their 
assistants,  were  not  present,  ordination  took  place  by  the  presid- 
ing officer  {PrcBsidem)  of  tlieir  body,  with  the  concurrence  of 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  161 

th'i  presbytery."  We  were  particularly  surprised  that  the 
authority  of  Calvin  shoulJ  have  beeu  adduced,  as  sauciioifiiig 
that  iulerpretaliou,  whicii  refers  the  word  presbytery  to  (ifficn, 
and  not  iu  persons.  His  words  are,  "Tiiey  who  lulerprel  pres- 
bytery  here  as  a  collective  noun,  denoting  the  college  ol"  presby-' 
ters,  are,  in  my  judgment,  right."  Our  tirst  argument,  men,  is, 
that  the  word  ■"  presbytery,"  denoting  tiie  persons  wiio  composed 
the  body,  or  college  of  elders,  is  the  proper,  obvious,  and  esia- 
blished  sense  of  the  passage. 

(2.)  It  is  evident  from  this  passage,  that  whoever  or  whatever 
else  might  have  been  engaged  in  this  transaction,  a  material  part 
of  it  belonged  to  the  presbytery  or  eldership  concerned.  '' Ae- 
fflect  iiol  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  ichich  was  given  thee  by  pro- 
phecy ;    WITH  THE  LAYING  ON  OF  THE    HANDS  OF  THE  PRESBYTEKY." 

Here  it  is  evident  that  tlie  presbytery  bore  a  material  part  in  the 
transaction.  Paul  says  tliat  the  gilt  that  was  in  Timothy  was 
given  him  by  pr:,phecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  tf  the 
presbytery.  Tuat  is,  that  prophecy,  or  some  prophecies  relating 
to  Timothy,  (coinp.  1  Tun.  i.  18,  ''according  to  tiie  prophecies 
which  went  before  in  thee,")  had  designated  him  as  a  propi-r 
person  for  the  ministry,  or  that  he  would  be  employed  in  the 
ministry;  but  the  prophecy  did  not  invest  him  with  the  office, 
— did  not  confer  the  gift.  That  was  done, — that  formal  appoint- 
ment fulfilling  the  pnjphecy, — by  the  impositiim  of  the  hands  uf 
the  presbytery.  It  was  necessary  that  that  act  of  the  presbytery 
should  thus  concur  with  the  propiiecy,  or  Timothy  had  remained 
a  layman.  The  presbyters  laid  their  hands  on  him;  and  he 
thus  received  his  office.  As  the  proplu^cy  made  no  part  of  his 
ordination,  it  follows  that  he  was  ordained  by  the  presbytery. 

(3.)  The  statement  here  is  just  one  whicli  would  be  given 
now  in  a  Presbyterian  ordination ;  it  is  not  one  which  would 
be  made  in  an  Episcopal  ordination.  A  Presbyterian  would 
choose  these  very  words,  to  give  an  account  of  an  ordination  iu 
his  clinrch  ;  an  Episcopalian  would  not.  The  former  speaks  of 
ordination  by  a  presbytery  ;  the  latter  of  ordination  by  a  bishop. 
The  former  can  use  the  account  of  the  Apostle  Paul  here  as 
applicable  to  ordination,  without  explanations,  comments,  new 
versions,  and  criticisms  ;  the  latter  cannot.  The  passage  speaks 
to  the  common  understanding  of  men  in  favor  of  Presbyterian 
ordination, — of  the  action  of  a  presbytery  in  tlie  case:  it  nevt-r 
speaks  the  language  of  Episcopacy,  even  after  all  the  torture  to 
which  it  may  be  subjected  by  Episcopal  criticism.  The  passage 
is  one,  too,  which  is  not  like  the  "apostles  and  elders,"  '•im; 
apostles,  and  elders  and  brethren," — the  only  direct  passage  oa 
which  Episcopacy  relies, — a  [)assaHe  which  has  no  perceplil)le 
coimt'xion  wiili  the  case;  but  it  is  one  that  speaks  on  the  very 
suliject;  which  relates  to  the  exact  transaction;  and  whicii 
makes  a  positive  affirmation  of  the  very  thing  in  debate. 

(4.)  The  supposition  that  this  was  not  a  presbyterial  transac- 
tion, renders  the  passage  unmeaning.  Here  was  present  a  body 
14* 


162  REVIEW — ANSWER   TO   A    REVIEW   OF 

of  men  called  a  presbytery.  We  ask  the  Episcopalian  why  they 
were  present?  The  answer  is,  not  for  the  purpose  of  ordina- 
tion, but  for  "concurrence."  Paul,  tlie  bisliop,  is  the  sole 
ordainer.  We  see  Timothy  bowing  before  the  presbytery.  We 
see  them  solemnly  impose  their  hands  on  him.  We  ask,  Why  is 
this?  '■Not  for  the  purpose  of  ordination,'  the  Episcopalian 
replies,  'but  for  "concurrence."  Paul  is  the  ordainer.'  But,  we 
ask.  Had  they  no  share  in  the  ordination?  '  None  at  all.'  Had 
they  no  participation  in  conferring  the  gift  designated  by  pro- 
phecy ?  'None  at  all.'  Why,  then,  present?  \Vhy  did  they 
impose  hands?  For  "concurrence,"  for  form,  for  nothing!  It 
was  an  empty  pageantry,  in  which  they  were  mistaken  when 
supposing  that  their  act  had  something  to  do  in  conferring  the 
gift;  for  their  presence  really  meant  nothing,  and  the  whole 
transaction  could  as  well  have  been  performed  without  as  with 
them. 

(5.)  If  this  ordination  was  the  joint  act  of  the  presbytery,  we 
have  here  a  complete  scriptural  account  of  a  Presbyterian  ordi- 
nation. It  becomes,  then,  a  very  material  question,  how  the 
Episcopalians  dispose  of  this  passage  of  Scripture.  Their  diffi- 
culties and  embarrassments  on  this  subject,  will  still  further 
confirm  the  obvious  interpretation  which  Presbyterians  suggest 
and  hold.  These  difficulties  and  embarrassments  are  thus  pie- 
sented  by  Dr.  Onderdonk  : — 

He  first  doubts  whetlier  this  transaction  was  an  ordination. 
(Tract,  pp.  18,  19.)  To  tliis  we  answer,  (1.)  That  if  ir  were  not, 
then  there  is  no  account  that  Timothy  was  ever  ordained  ;  (2.) 
That  there  is  no  specific  work  mentioned  in  the  history  of  tlie 
apostles,  to  which  Timothy  was  designated,  unless  it  was  ordi- 
nation ;  (3.)  That  it  is  the  obvious  and  fair  meaning  of  tiie  pas- 
sage ;  (4.)  That  if  this  does  not  refer  to  ordination,  it  would  be 
easy  to  apply  the  same  denial  to  all  the  passages  which  speak  of 
the  "  imposition  of  hands,"  and  to  show  that  tliere  was  no  such 
thing  as  ordination  to  the  ministry  in  any  case ;  (5.)  That  it 
accords  with  the  common  usage  of  liie  terms,  'imposition  of 
hand?,'  iinOccrts  tUv  ^Eipwi',  in  the  New  Testament.  The  piirase 
occurs  but  four  times: — Acts  viii.  18;  1  Tim.  iv.  14  ;  2  Tim.  i.  6; 
Heb.  vi.  2.  In  all  these  places  it  evidenll}'  denotes  conferring 
some  gift,  office,  or  favor  described  by  the  act.  In  2  Tim. 
i.  6,  it  denotes,  by  the  acknowledgment  of  all  Episcopalians, 
ordination  to  the  ministr3^  Why  should  it  not  here  ?  (6.)  If, 
as  Dr.  Onderdonk  supposes,  it  refers  to  "  an  inspired  designalion 
of  one  already  in  the  ministry,  to  a  particular  field  of  duty," 
(Tract,  p.  19,)  then,  (a)  we  ask,  why  we  have  no  oilier  mention 
of  this  transaction?  (6)  We  ask  how  it  is  to  be  accounted  for 
that  Paul,  while  here  evidently  referring  Timotiiy  to  tlie  duties 
and  responsibilities  of  the  ministerial  office  in  genera],  should 
not  refer  to  his  orditiaiion,  but  to  a  desig'nation  to  a  particular 
field  of  labor  1  His  argument  to  Timothy,  on  such  a  supposition, 
would  be  this — '  Your  office  of  a  minister  of  the  Gospel,  is  one 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED   BY    SCRIPTURE.  163 

Ihat  is  exceedingly  important.  A  bishop  must  be  blameless, 
vigilant,  sober,  of  good  behavior,  given  to  iiospitality,  apt  to 
teaoii,  not  given  to  wine,  &c.  (ciiap.  iii.)  In  order  to  impress 
this  more  deeply  on  yon,  to  fix  tliese  great  duties  in  yonr  mmd,  I 
refer  yon, — nut  to  the  soleninity  of  yotir  ordination  vows, — but 
/  solemnly  remind  you  of  ^- an  inspired  separation  of  one 
already  in  the  ministry,  to  a  particular  field  of  duty.'''''  We 
need  only  observe  iiere,  that  this  is  not  a  strain  of  argument  that 
looks  like  Paul.     But, 

Secondly.  Dr.  O.  supposes  that  this  was  not  a  Presbyterian 
ordinalioa.  (Tract,  pp.  19-21.)  His  first  supposition  is  that  the 
word  •'  presbytery"  does  not  mean  tiie  persons,  but  the  ofllce. 
(p.  19.)  Tliis  we  liave  already  noticed.  He  next  supposes,  (pp. 
20,  21,)  that  if  the  "  presbytery"  here  means  not  the  oflice  given 
to  Timolhy,  but  a  body  of  elders,  that  it  cannot  be  shown  ''  of 
whom  this  ordaining  presbytery  was  composed."  (p.  21.)  And 
he  tiien  proceeds  to  state  that  tliere  are  "seven  modes"  in 
wiiich  this  "presbytery"  miyht  be  composed.  It  might  be 
made  up  of  "  ruUng  elders;"  or,  it  might  be  composed  of 
the  "grade  called  presbyters;"  or,  as  Peter  and  John  called 
themselves  "elders,"  it  might  be  made  up  of  "apostles;"  or, 
"there  may  have  been  ruling  elders  and  presbyters;  or,  pres- 
byters and  one  or  more  apostles  ;  or,  ruling  eiders  and  one  or 
more  of  the  apostles;  or,  ruling  elders,  and  presl)ylers,  and 
apostles."  (p.  21.)  Now  as  Dr.  O.  has  not  informed  us  which  of 
these  modes  lie  prefers,  we  are  left  merely  to  conjecture.  We 
may  remark  on  these  suppositions,  (1.)  That  they  are  mere  sup- 
positions. There  is  not  the  shadow  of  proof  to  support  them. 
The  word  "  presbytery,"  "a  body  of  elders,"  does  not  appear  to 
be  such  a  ditiicult  word  of  interpretation,  as  to  make  it  necessary 
to  envelop  it  m  so  much  mist,  in  order  to  understand  it.  Dr  O.'s 
argument  here,  is  such  as  a  man  always  employs  when  he  is 
pressed  by  difficulties  which  he  cannot  meet,  and  when  he 
throws  himself,  as  it  were,  into  a  labyrinth,  in  the  hope  that 
amidst  its  numerous  passages  he  may  escape  detection  and 
evade  pursuit.  (2.)  Ii  this  "  body  of  elders"  was  made  up  of 
"  ruling  elders,"  or,  "  of  tlie  grade  called  presbyters,"  then  the 
argil nu^nt  of  Episcopacy  is  overthrown.  Here  is  an  instance, 
on  either  supposition,  of  Presbyterian  ordination,  which  is  fatal 
to  the  claims  that  bishops  only  ordain.  Or,  if  it  be  supposed 
that  this  was  not  an  ordination,  but  "  an  inspired  separation  of 
one  already  in  the  ministry,  to  a  particular  field  of  duty,"  it  is 
an  act  equally  fatal  to  the  claim  of  prelates  to  the  general 
"superintendence"  of  the  Church  ;  since  it  is  manifest,  that  these 
"elders"  took  n|)on  themselves  the  functions  of  this  office,  and 
dfsisiiitled  "  the  bishop  of  Ephesus"  to  his  field  of  labor.  Such 
a  transaction  would  scarcely  meet  with  Episcopal  approbation 
in  the  nineteenth  century. 

But  in  regard  to  the  other  sujiposilions,  that  a  part  of  all  llie 
"presbytery"  was  composed  of  apostles,  we  remark,  (1.)  That 


164  REVIEW — ANSWER   TO    A    REVIEW   OF 

it  is  a  merely  gratuitous  siippnsition.  There  is  not  an  instance 
in  wliicii  the  term  "presbytery,"  or  ''body  of  elders,"  is  applied 
in  tile  New  Testament  to  the  collective  body  of  the  apostles. 
(2.)  On  the  supposition  that  the  "presbytery"  was  composed 
entirely  of  aposiles,  then  we  ask  how  it  happens,  that,  in  2  Tim. 
i.  6,  Paul  appropriates  to  himself  a  power  which  belonged  to  every 
one  of  them  in  as  full  rigiit  as  to  him?  How  came  they  to 
surrender  their  power  into  the  hands  of  an  individual  ?  Was  it 
the  character  of  Paul  thus  to  assume  authority  wliich  did  not 
belong  to  him?  We  have  seen  already  how,  on  the  supposi- 
tion of  the  Episcopalian,  he  superseded  Bishop  Timothy  in  the 
exercise  of  discipline  in  Corinth,  and  in  his  own  diocese  at 
Ephesus:  we  have  now  an  instance  in  which  he  claims  all  the 
virtue  of  the  ordaining  power,  where  his  fellow  apostles  must 
have  been  equally  concerned. 

But  if  a  part  only  of  this  "  presbytery"  was  composed  of 
apostles,  and  tlie  remainder  presbyters,  eillier  ruling  elders,  or 
"the  second  grade,"  we  would  make  the  following  inquiries : 
(1.)  W^is  he  ordained  as  a  prelate  7  So  the  Episcopalians  with 
one  voice  declare, — prelate  of  Ephesus.  Then  it  follows  that 
Timothy,  a  prelate,  was  set  apart  to  his  work  by  the  imposition 
of  the  hands  of  elders.  What  was  then  his  prelatical  char- 
acter? Does  the  water  in  the  cistern  rise  higher  than  the 
fountain?  If  laymen  were  concerned,  Timothy  was  a  layman 
still.  If  presbyters,  Timothy  was  a  presbyter  still.  And  thus 
all  the  power  of  prelates,  from  him  of  Rome  downward,  has 
come  through  the  hands  of  humble  presbyters, — ^just  as  we 
believe,  and  just  as  history  affirms.  (2.)  Was  lie  ordained  as  a 
presbyter  ?  Then  his  Episcopal  character,  so  far  as  it  depends 
on  his  ordination,  is  swept  away  ;  and  thus  we  have  not  a  soli- 
tary instance  of  the  consecration  of  a  prelate  in  all  the  New 
Testament. 

Which  of  these  suppositions  of  Dr.  O.,  he  is  disposed  to  re- 
ceive as  the  true  one,  we  are  unable  to  say.  All  of  them  cannot 
be  true  ;  and  whichever  he  chooses,  is,  as  we  have  seen,  equally 
fatal  to  his  argument,  and  involves  a  refutation  of  the  claims  of 
prelacy. 

The  only  other  reply  with  which  Dr.  O.  meets  the  argument 
for  Presbyterian  ordination  from  this  passage,  is,  by  the  suppo- 
sition, that  the  virtue  of  the  ordaining  act  was  derived  from  the 
Apostle  Paul.  The  passage  on  which  he  rests  the  argument  is, 
(2  Tim.  i.  6,)  "that  thou  stir  up  the  gift  of  God  which  is  in  thee, 
by  the  putting  on  of  my  hands."  On  this  passage  we  observe, 
(1.)  Paul  does  not  deny  that  other  hands  were  also  imposed  on 
'J'imoihy  ;  nor  that  his  authority  was  derived  also  from  others, 
in  conjiiiiction  with  himself.  (2.)  That  by  the  supposition  ol 
Episcopalians,  as  well  as  Presbyterians,  other  hands  were  in 
fact,  imposed  on  him.  (3.)  It  was  perfectly  natural  for  Paul,  in 
consequence  of  the  relation  which  Timothy  sustained  to  him,  as 
his  adopted  son,  (1  Tim.  i.  2;)  as  being  selected  by  hira  for  the 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTDRE.  165 

ministn',  (Acts  xvi.  3;)  and  as  being  his  companion  in  the 
ministry,  and  in  travels,  to  remind  him,  near  the  close  of  liis 
own  life,  (2  Tim.  iv.  6,)  that  he  had  been  solemnly  set  apart  to 
the  work  by  himself, — to  bring  his  own  agency  into  full  view, — 
in  order  to  stimulate  and  encoiu'agc  liim.  'J'liat  Paul  had  a 
part  in  the  act  of  the  ordination,  we  admit;  that  oiliers  also  had 
a  part — the  "presbytery" — we  have  proved.  (4.)  The  expres- 
sion which  is  here  used,  is  just  such  as  an  aged  Presbyterian 
minister  would  now  use,  if  directing  a  farewell  letter  to  a  son  in 
liie  ministry.  He  would  remind  him.  as  Paul  does  in  lliis  epis- 
tle, (2  Tim.  iv.  6.)  that  he  was  about  to  leave  tlie  ministry,  and 
the  world  ;  and  if  he  wished  to  impress  his  mind  in  a  peculiarly 
tender  manner,  he  would  remind  him,  also,  that  he  took  part  in 
his  ordination  ;  that  under  his  own  hands,  he  had  been  desig- 
nated to  the  work  of  the  ministry;  and  would  endeavor  to  deep- 
en his  conviction  of  the  importance  and  magnitude  of  the  work, 
by  the  reflection  that  he  had  been  solemnly  set  apart  to  it  by  a 
father.  Yet  who  would  infer  from  this,  that  the  aged  Presbyte- 
rian would  wish  to  be  regarded  as  a  prelate  ? 

Dr.  O.  remarks  on  this  case,  (Tract,  p.  22,)  that,  if  Paul  was 
engaged  in  the  transaction,  it  was  the  work  of  an  apostle,  and 
was  "an  apostolic  ordination."  We  admit  that  it  was  an 
'■'■apostolic  ordination;"  but  when  will  Episcopalians  lear«  to 
suppose  it  possible,  that  an  "apostolic  ordination"  was  not  a 
prelatical  ordination?  Did  not  Dr.  O.  see  that  this  was  assum- 
■ina;  the  very  point  in  debate,  that  the  pecjiUarili/  of  the  apostolic 
office  was  the  power  of  ordaining?  We  reply,  further,  that 
whoever  was  engaged  in  it,  a  "  presbytery"  was  concerned,  and 
it  was  a  Presbyterian  ordination. 

We  have  now  considered  all  the  objections  that  have  been 
made  to  the  obvious  interpretation  of  this  passage;  and  we  are 
prepared  to  submit  it  to  any  candid  mind,  as  a  full  and  unquali- 
fied statement  of  an  instance  of  Presbyterian  ordination.  Which- 
ever of  the  half-dozen  suppositions, — assuming  a  hue,  chameleon- 
like, from  the  nature  of  the  argument  to  be  refuted, — which 
Episcopalians  are  compelled  to  apply  to  the  passage,  is  adopted, 
we  have  seen  that  they  involve  them  in  all  the  difficulties  of  an 
unnatural  interpretation,  and  conduct  us  by  a  more  circuitous 
route,  only  to  the  plain  and  common  sense  exposition  of  the 
passage,  as  decisive  in  favor  of  Presbyterian  ordination. 

Having  thus  showMi  that  there  was  one  Presbyterian  ordina- 
tion, in  the  case  of  Timothy,  claimed  by  Episcopalians  as  a 
prelate,  and  this  too,  in  perhaps  the  only  instance  of  ordination 
to  tlie  ministry  recorded  in  the  New  'I'estament ;  we  now  pro- 
ceed to  adduce  the  case  of  a  church  that  was  not  organized  on 
the  iirineiples  of  Episeopalians,  with  three  orders  of  clergv. 
We  refer  to  the  church  at  Philippi.  "  Paid  and  Timothy,  serv- 
ants of  Jk.sus  Curi.st,  to  all  the  saints  in  Ciuust  ,Tk.sus  who  are  at 
Philippi,  with  tlie  bishops  and  deacons,"  avv  ifiaf.imjn  Ka\  fiandvuH. 
h\  regard  to  this  church  we  make  the  following  observations. 


166  REVrEW — ANSWER   TO   A   REVIEW   OF 

(1.)  It  was  organized  by  the  Apostle  Paul  himself,  in  connexion 
witli  Silns,  and  was,  therefore,  on  the  truly  "  [irimitive  and  apos- 
tolic" plan.  (Arts  xvi.)  (2.)  It  was  in  the  centre  of  a  large 
territory,  the  capital  of  Macedonia,  and  not  likely  to  be  placed  in 
snhjeciion  to  a  diocesan  of  anotiier  region.  (3.)  It  was  snr- 
ronnded  by  otlier  cliurches;  as  we  liave  express  mention  of  the 
churcli  at  Tliessalonica,  and  the  preaching  of  tlie  Gospel  at 
Berea.  (Acts  xvii.)  (4.)  There  is  mention  made  of  but  two 
orders  (if  men.  Wiiat  the  deacons  were,  we  know  from  the 
appointn'-jnt  in  Acts  vi.  1-6.  Ttiey  were  designated,  not  to 
preach,  Out  to  take  care  of  the  poor  members  of  the  church,  and 
to  distribute  tiie  alms  of  tlie  saints.  As  we  have  there,  in  the 
original  appointment  of  the  office,  the  express  and  extended 
mention  of  its  functions,  we  are  to  infer  that  the  design  was  the 
same  at  Pliilippi.  If  we  admit,  however,  the  supposition  of  the 
Episcopalian.s,  that  tlie  deacons  were  prenchns,  it  will  not  at  all 
affect  our  argument.  The  otlier  class,  therefore,  the  "bishops," 
constitute  the  preaching  order,  or  tiie  clergy, — those  to  wliom 
were  committed  the  preaching  of  the  word,  the  administralion 
of  tlie  saciaments,  and  of  the  discipline  of  the  church.  Now, 
either  these  bishops  were  prelates,  or  they  were  the  paslors,  tlie 
presbyters  of  the  church.  If  Episcopalians  ciioose  to  say  they 
W'vYti  prelates,  then  it  follows,  (a)  that  there  was  a  plurality  of 
such  prelates  in  the  same  diocese,  and  the  same  city,  and  the 
same  chnrcli  ;  which  is  contrary  to  th&  fundamental  idea  of 
Episcopacy.  It  follows  also,  {b)  that  there  is  entirely  wanting 
in  this  church  the  'second  order'  of  clergy  ;  that  an  Episcopal 
church  is  organized,  defective  in  one  of  the  essential  grades, 
with  an  appointment  of  a  body  of  prelates,  without  presbyters; 
that  is,  an  order  of 'superior'  men,  designated  to  exercise  juris- 
diction over  "  priests"  who  had  no  existence.  If  it  be  said  that 
the  "'presbyters,"  or  "second  order."  might  have  been  there, 
though  Paul  did  not  expressly  name  them  ;  tlien  we  are  pre- 
sented with  the  remarkable  fact,  that  he  specifies  the  deocn)!s, 
an  inferior  order,  and  expresses  to  them  his  Christian  saluta- 
tions; tliat  he  salutes  and  addresses  also  the  saints,  and  yet 
entirely  disregards  those  who  had  the  special  pastoral  charge  of 
the  church.  Paul  thus  becomes  a  model  of  disrespect  and 
incivility.  In  the  epistles  to  Timothy  he  gives  him  directions 
about  every  thing  else,  but  no  counsel  about  his  brother  pre- 
lates: in  the  epistles  to  the  churches  he  salutes  their  prelates 
and  their  deacons,  but  becomes  utterly  regardless  of  the  'second 
order  of  clergy,'  the  immediate  pastors  of  tlie  churches. 

But  if  our  Episcopal  brethren  prefer  to  say,  that  the  "  bishops" 
here  mean  not  prelates  but  presbyters,  we,  so  fur,  shall  agree 
with  them  ;  and  then  it  follows,  (a)  that  here  is  an  undeniable 
instance  of  a  church,  or  ratlier  a  group  of  churches,  large 
enouHh  to  satisfy  tlie  desire  of  any  diocesan  bishop  for  extended 
jurisdiction,  organized  without  any  prelate.  None  is  men 
tioned ;  and  there  are  but  two  orders  of  men,  to  whom  the  care 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIFHIRE.  I(l7 

of  the  "saints  at  Pliilippi"  is  intrusted.  (6)  If  there  was  a 
prelate  there,  then  we  ask,  why  Paul  did  not  refer  to  him  with 
aflectionute  salutations  ?  SVhy  does  lie  refer  to  '  the  second  and 
t!ie  third  orders  of  clergy,'  without  the  slightest  reference  to  the 
man  wiio  was  '  superior  to  them  in  ministerial  rank  and  power  ?' 
Was  Paul  Jealous  cf  the  prelate?  or  have  we  here  anolher 
instance  of  indecorum  and  incivility?  (c)  If  they  had  had  a 
prelate,  and  the  see  was  now  vacant,  wiiy  is  there  no  reference 
to  this  fact  ?  why  no  condolence  at  their  loss  ?  why  no  i)rayer 
tiiat  God  would  send  them  a  man  to  enter  into  the  vacant  dio- 
cese ?  (cZ)  Episcopalians  have  sometimes  felt  the  pressure  of 
these  dillicuhies  to  be  so  great,  that  they  have  supposed  tlie  pre- 
late to  have  been  absent  when  tiiis  epistle  was  addressed  to  the 
churcii  at  Philippi;  and  that  this  was  the  reason  wiiy  he  was 
not  remembered  in  tlie  salutation.  Of  this  solution,  we  observe 
only,  that  like  some  other  of  their  arguments,  it  is  mere  assump- 
tion. And  even  granting  this  assumption,  it  is  an  inquiry  of  not 
very  easy  solution,  why  Paul  did  not  make  some  reference  to 
this  fact,  and  ask  their  prayers  for  the  absent  prelate.  One  can 
scarcely  help  being  forcibly  reminded,  by  the  ineffectual  efforts 
of  Episcopalians  to  find  a  prelate  at  Piiilippi,  of  a  remarkable 
transaction  mentioned  1  Kings  xviii.  27,  28,  to  which  we  need 
only  refer  our  readers.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  add,  that  if 
a  single  church  is  proved  to  have  been  organized  without  the 
"  three  orders  of  clergy,''  the  parity  of  the  ministry  is  made  out 
by  apostolic  appointment,  and  the  Episcopal  argument  is  at 
an  end. 

We  may  add,  that  our  view  of  the  organization  of  the  church 
in  Philijjpi,  is  confirmed  by  an  examination  of  tiie  organization 
of  the  cliurcii  in  its  immediate  neigliborhood,  in  Thessalonica 
In  tlie  two  epistles  which  Paul  directed  to  that  church,  there  is 
not  the  slightest  reference  to  any  prelatical  bishop  ;  there  is  nc 
mention  of  'three  orders  of  clergy;'  there  is  no  hint  that  the 
cluirch  was  organized  on  that  plan.  But  one  order  of  ministers 
is  mentioned,  evidently  as  entitled  to  tlie  same  respect,  and  as  on 
an  entire  equality.  They  were  men  clearly  of  the  same  rank,  and 
engaged  in  discharging  the  functions  of  the  same  office.  "  And 
we  beseech  you,  bretliren,  to  know  tlu'in  wliicii  labor  among 
you,  and  are  over  you  in  the  Loud,  and  admonish  you;  and  to 
esteem  them  very  highly  in  love  for  their  work's  sake."  1  Tliess. 
V.  12,  13.  Will  our  Episcopal  friends  be  kind  enough  to  inform 
us,  why  there  is  no  mention  of  the  prelate,  whether  present 
or  absent  ? 

We  are  here  prepared  to  estimate  the  force  of  the  undeniable 
fact,  that  there  is  no  distinction  of  grade  or  rank,  by  the  names 
which  are  given  to  the  ministers  of  the  (Jospel  in  the  New 
Testament.  It  is  admitted  by  Episcopalians  themselves  that 
the  naini'S  bishoji,  presbyter,  &c.,  in  the  Hible,  do  not  denote 
tliose  ranks  of  churcli  officers  to  wliicli  they  are  now  applied, 
but  are  given  indi.scriminately  to  all.     On  this  point  we  iiave 


168  REVIEW — ANSAVER   TO   A    REVIEW    OF 

the  authority  of  Dr.  Onderdonk.  "The  name  'bishop,'"  says 
he,  "which  now  designates  the  highest  grade  of  the  ministry, 
is  not  appropriated  to  this  office  in  Scripture.  That  name  is 
given  to  the  middle  order,  or  presbyters;  and  all  TnAT  we  read 
IN  THE  new  testament  conceR'MNG  '  BisHors,'  (including,  of 
course,  tlie  words  '  overseers,'  and  '  oversigiit,' which  liave  the 
same  derivation,)  is  to  be  regarded  as  pertaining  to  this  mid- 
dle GRADE."  (Tract,  p.  12)  "Another  irregularity  of  the  same 
kind,  occurs  in  regard  to  the  word  'elder.'  It  is  sometimes 
used  for  a  minister  or  clergyman  of  any  grade,  liigiier,  middle, 
or  lower;  but  it  more  strictly  signifies  a  presbyier."  Tract, 
[).  14. 

In  accordance  with  this  fact,  whicli  is  as  remarkable  as  it  is 
true,  we  have  seen  that  Peter  applies  to  himself  the  name  pres- 
byter, and  puis  iiimself  on  a  level  with  other  presbyters.  "The 
presbyters  wliich  are  among  you,  I  exhort,  (not  I  command,  or 
enjoin,  as  a  prelate  would  do,)  who  am  also  a  presbyter." 
I  Peter  v.  1.  And  in  the  very  next  verse  he  exhorts  them,  (the 
elders  or  presbyters,)  to  "  feed  the  flock  of  God,  taking  the  over- 
sight, {iiTKTKovivvTti  exercising  the  office  of  bishop,)  not  by  con- 
sliainl,"  &c. 

Now  let  these  conceded  facts  be  borne  in  mind.  The  term 
f)resbyter  is  applied  to  the  apostles.  "  All  that  we  read  of  in  the 
New  Testament  concerning  'bishops,'  is  applied  to  the  middle 
grade."  The  apostles  address  each  other,  and  their  brethren,  by 
liie  same  terms, — by  no  words  or  names  that  indicate  rank,  or 
grade,  or  authority.  We  maintain  that  this  fact  can  be  account- 
ed for,  only  on  the  supposition  that  they  regarded  themselves  as 
ministers,  as  on  a  level.  If  they  meant  to  teach  that  one  class 
was  superior  in  rank  and  power  to  others,  we  maintain  that 
they  would  not  have  used  terms  always  confounding  such  dis- 
tinctions, and  alii-ays  proceeding  on  the  supposition  that  they 
were  on  an  equality.  It  will  not  be  pretended,  that  they  could 
not  employ  terms  that  would  have  marked  the  various  grades. 
For  if  the  term  'bishop'  can  now  do  it,  it  could  do  it  then  ;  if 
the  term  presbyter  can  nosv  be  used  to  denote  'the  middle 
grade,'  it  could  then  have  been  so  used.  We  maintain,  too,  that 
if  sucli  had  been  their  intention,  they  would  have  thus  employed 
those  terms.  That  the  sacred  writers  were  capable  of  using 
language  definitely.  Dr.  Onderdonk  will  not  doubt.  Why,  then, 
if  they  xpere  capable,  did  the}'  choose  not  to  do  it  ?  Are  Episco- 
pal bishops  now,  ever  as  vague  and  indefinite  in  their  use  of  the 
terms  'bishop'  and  'presbyters'  as  were  the  apostles?  Why 
were  the  latter  so  undesirous  of  having  the  "pre-eminence  ?" 
(3  John  9.) 

It  is  remarkable,  that  the  mode  of  using  these  terms  in  the 
New  Testament,  is  precisely  in  accordance  wiih  the  usage  in 
Presbyterian  and  Congregational  churches.  They  speak,  just 
as  the  sacred  writers  did,  of  their  ministers,  indiscriminately  as 
'  bishops,'  as  '  pastors,'  as  '  teachers,'  as  '  evangelists.'      They 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  169 

regard  their  ministers  as  on  an  equality.     Did  not  trie  sucrt-d 
Wfiiers  do  the  same  ? 

It  is  as  remarkable,  that  the  mode  of  using  these  terms  in  the 
Episcopal  churclies  is  not,  (ex  concessiii,)  that  wiiicli  occurs  m 
the  Bible.  And  it  is  ascertain,  that  iccre  they  thus  to  nsc  iliosi- 
terms,  it  would  at  once  confound  their  orders  and  ranks,  mid 
reduce  their  ministers  to  equality.  Do  we  ever  see  any  approxi 
mation  in  their  addresses,  and  in  tlieir  canons,  in  tliis  rcsj'tct.  lu 
the  language  and  style  of  tlie  New  Testament?  Do  wt.  cvci- 
hear  of  liistiop  Tyng,  or  Bishop  Hawks,  or  Bishop  Schrocder, 
or  Bishop  Croswell  ?  Do  we  ever  hear  of  Presbyter  Jvcs,  or 
Doaiie,  or  Onderdonk?  How  would  language  like  this  soinid  in 
the  moutli  of  a  prelatical  bishop  ?  Would  not  all  men  be 
amazed,  as  if  some  new  thing  had  liappencd  under  the  sun,  in 
the  Kpiscopal  Ciuirch?  And  yet,  we  venture  to  presume,  thai 
the  terms  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  designate  any  ollice. 
may  be  used  still.  We  shall  still  choose  to  call  things  by  liieir 
true  names,  and  to  apply  to  all  ranks  and  orders  of  men  tlie 
terms  which  are  applied  to  them  by  the  Spirit  of  inspiration. 
And  as  the  indiscriminate  use  of  tliese  terms  is  carefully 
avoided  by  the  customs  and  canons  of  tlie  Episcopal  Ciuirch  ; 
as  there  seems  to  have  been  a  presentiment  in  tiie  formation  of 
those  canons,  that  such  indiscriminate  use  would  reduce  the 
fabric  to  simple  'parity'  of  tlie  clergy;  and  as  these  terms  ccm- 
not  be  so  used,  without  reducing  these  '  ranks  and  orders'  to  a 
scriptural  equality,  we  come  to  tiie  conclusion  that  the  Ajjostles 
meant  to  teach,  that  the  ministers  of  the  New  Testament  are 
equal  in  ministerial  rights  and  powers. 

We  have  now  gone  through  this  entire  subject.  We  have 
examined,  we  trust,  in  a  candid  manner, — we  are  sure  with  the 
kindest  feelings  toward  our  Episcopal  brethren,  —  every  argu- 
ment which  they  have  to  adduce  from  the  Bible,  in  favor  of  tiie 
claims  of  their  bishops.  We  have  disposed  of  these  arguments 
step  by  step.  We  have  done  this,  remembering  that  these  are 
ALL  the  arguments  which  Episcopacy  has  to  urge  from  the  Bible. 
'J'here  is  nothing  that  remains.  Tlie  subject  is  exhausted. 
Episcopacy  rests  here.  And  it  is  incumbent  on  Episcopacy  to 
show,  not  to  affirm,  that  our  interpretation  of  tliose  passages  is 
not  sustained  by  sound  principles  of  exegesis. 

The  burden  of  proof  still  lies  on  them.  They  assumed  it,  and 
on  them  it  rests.  They  affirm  that  enormous  powers  are  lodged 
in  the  hands  of  the  prelate, — every  tiling  pertaining  to  ordina- 
tion, to  discipline,  to  the  superintendence  of  the  Christian  Church. 
They  claim  powers  tending  to  degrade  every  presbyter  in  the 
world  to  the  condition  of  a  dependent  and  inferior  office  ;  slrij)- 
ping  him  of  tiie  riglit  of  transmitting  his  own  office,  and  of 
administering  discipline  among  his  own  flock.  'I'hey  arrogate 
powers  whicli  go  to  strip  all  other  presbyters,  except  Episcopa- 
lian, of  any  right  to  ofiiciate  in  the;  CHiurch  of  Uon;  rendering 
''Iheir  ordination  invalid,  their  administrations  void,  and  their 
15 


170  REVIEW — ANSWER    TO    A    REVIEW    OF 

exercise  of  the  functions  of  tlieir  ofl:ce,  a  daring  and  impious 
invasion  of  the  riglits  of  the  priesthood,  and  a  violation  of  the 
law  of  Christ.  The  foundation  for  these  sweeping,  and  certainly 
not  very  modest  claims,  we  have  examined  with  all  freedom. 
The  argument  for  prelacy  may  be  summed  up  in  a  word.  It 
consists  in  the  text, — the  solitary  text, — "  the  apostles  and 
elders,"  "the  apostles,  and  elders,  and  brethren,"  joined  to  a 
circuitous  train  of  reasoning  remote  from  common  apprehen- 
sion, and  too  abstruse  for  the  guidance  of  the  mass  of  men. 
Step  by  step  we  have  followed  them  in  their  circuits;  argument 
after  argument  we  have  patiently  displaced  ;  and  at  the  conclu- 
sion, we  may  ask  any  person  of  plain  common  sense,  to  place 
his  finger  on  that  portion  of  the  Book  of  God  which  is  favorable 
to  prelacy. 

This  argument  having  been  met  and  disproved,  we  have 
produced  an  instance  of  express  Presbyterian  ordination  in  the 
case  of  Timotliy.  Two  ciiurches  we  have  found  that  were 
organized  without  prelates.  We  are  thus,  by  another  train  of 
argument,  conducted  to  the  same  result, — that  prelates  are 
unknown  in  the  New  Testament.  And  to  make  our  argument 
perfectly  conclusive,  we  have  shown  that  the  same  titles  are 
applied  indiscriminately  to  all. 

Our  argument  may  be  stated  in  still  fewer  Avords.  The 
Episcopal  claims  are  not  made  out ;  and,  of  course,  the  clergy  of 
the  New  Testament  are  equal.  The  Episcopalian  has  failed  to 
show  that  there  were  different  grades ;  and  it  follows  that  there 
must  be  •parity.  We  have  examined  the  only  case  of  ordina- 
tion specified  in  the  New  Testament,  and  the  constitution  of  the 
churches,  and  find  that  it  is  so;  and  we  are  conducted  inevita- 
bly to  the  conclusion  that  prelacy  is  not  in  the  Bible. 

We  now  take  our  leave  of  the  Episcopal  controversy.  As  Epis- 
copacy has  nothing  which  it  can  add  to  the  scriptural  argument, 
we  regard  our  labors  in  this  department  as  at  end.  The  whole 
scriptural  argument  is  exhausted,  and  here  ozir  inquiry  ends ; 
and  here  oicr  interest  in  this  topic  ceases.  We  take  leave  of  the 
subject  with  the  same  kind  feelings  for  that  Church,  and  the 
same  respect  for  the  author  of  the  "Tract,"  Avith  which  we  began 
the  inquiry.  We  remember  the  former  services  which  the  Epis- 
copal Church  rendered  to  the  cause  of  truth,  and  of  the  world's 
redemption  ;  we  remember  the  bright  and  ever-living  lights  of 
truth,  which  her  clergy  and  her  illustrious  laymen  have  in  other 
tnnes  enkindled  in  the  darkness  of  this  world's  history,  and 
which  continue  to  pour  their  pure  and  steady  lustre  on  the  liter- 
ature, the  laws,  and  the  customs  of  the  Christian  world  ;  and  we 
trust  the  day  will  never  come,  when  our  own  bosoms,  or  the 
bosoms  of  Christians  in  any  denomination,  will  cease  to  beat 
with  emotions  of  lofty  thanksgiving  to  the  God  of  grace,  that  he 
raised  up  such  gifted  and  holy  men,  to  meet  the  corruptions  of 
the  Papacy,  and  to  breast  the  wickedness  of  the  world. 

In  our  view  of  ecclesiastical  polity,  we  can  have  no  unkind 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY   SCRrPTURE.  171 

feelings  toward  any  branch  of  the  true  Church  of  God.  We 
strive  to  cherish  feelings  of  affectionate  regard  for  tiieni  all,  and 
to  render  praise  to  tiie  common  Father  of  Ciirislians,  for  any 
efforts  which  are  made  to  advance  the  intelligence,  the  purity 
and  the  salvation  of  mankind.  In  our  views  of  the  nature  of 
mind,  and  of  freedom,  we  can  have  no  unkind  feelings  toward 
any  denomination  of  true  Cliristians.  "  There  are  diversities  of 
operations,  but  the  same  Spirit."  We  have  no  expectation  tiiat 
all  men,  in  this  world,  will  think  alike.  And  we  regard  it  as  a 
wise  arrangement,  that  the  Church  of  God  is  thus  organized 
into  different  sections  and  departments,  under  the  banner  of  the 
common  Captain  of  their  salvation.  It  promotes  inquiry.  It 
prevents  complacency  in  mere  forms  and  ceremonies.  It  pro- 
duces healtiiy  and  vigorous  emulation.  It  affords  opportunities 
for  ?il  classes  of  minds  to  arrange  themselves  according  to  their 
preferences  and  their  habits  of  thought.  And  it  is  not  unfavora- 
ble to  that  kindness  of  feeling  which  the  Christian  can  ciierisli, 
and  should  cherish,  when  he  utters  in  the  sanctuary  the  article  (jf 
his  faith,  "I  believe  in  the  holy  catholic  Church,  the  commu- 
nion of  saints."  The  attachment  of  a  soldier  to  a  particular 
company  or  squadron,  need  not  diminish  his  respect  for  the 
armies  of  his  country,  or  extinguish  his  love  of  her  liberty. 
Being  joined  to  a  company  of  infantry,  need  not  make  me  feel 
that  the  cavalry  are  useless,  or  involve  me  in  a  controversy  with 
the  artillery. 

We  ask  only,  that  Episcopacy  should  not  assume  arrogant 
claims;  that  slie  should  be  willing  to  take  her  place  among 
other  denominations  of  Christians,  entitled  to  like  respect  as 
others,  to  all  the  tender  and  sympathetic  affections  of  the  Chris- 
tian brotherhood  ;  and  willing  that  others  should  walk  in  the 
liberty  wherewith  Christ  has  made  his  people  free.  We  shall 
have  no  contest  with  our  Episcopal  brethren  for  loving  the 
church  of  their  choice,  and  the  church  in  which  they  seek  to 
prepare  themselves  for  heaven.  We  shall  not  utter  the  lan- 
guage of  unkindness  for  their  reverencing  the  ministerial  office, 
in  which  the  spirits  of  Cranmer  and  Leighton  were  prepared  for 
their  eternal  rest.  Content  that  other  denominations  should 
enjoy  like  freedom,  while  they  do  not  arrogate  to  themselves 
unholy  claims,  and  attempt  to  "lord  it  over"  other  parts  "of 
God's  heritage,"  we  shall  pray  for  their  success,  and  rejoice  in 
their  advancement.  But  the  moment  they  cross  this  line  ;  tlie 
moment  they  make  any  advances  which  resemble  those  of  the 
Papacy  ;  the  moment  they  set  up  the  claim  of  being  the  only 
"  primitive  and  apostolical  Church ;"  and  the  moment  they  speak 
of  the  ''invalid  ministry"  and  the  "invalid  ordinances"  of  the 
churches,  and  regard  tiiem  as  "left  to  the  uncovennnted  mer- 
cies of  God,"  that  moment  the  langiiaije  of  argument  and  of 
Christian  rebuke  may  [)ropeily  be  heard  from  every  otiier  deno- 
miiialion.  There  are  minds  tliat  can  investigate  tiie  Bible,  as 
well  as  the  advocates  for  E[)isfi)pacy  ;  there  are  pens  that  can 


172  REVIEW — ANSWER   TO    A    REVIEW    OF 

compete  with  any  found  in  the  Episcopal  Church  ;  and  there 
are  men  who  will  not  be  slow  to  rebuke  the  first  appearance  of 
arrogance  aud  of  lordly  assumption,  and  who  will  remind  tiiem, 
that  the  time  has  gone  by  when  an  appeal  to  the  infallible 
Church  will  answer  in  this  controversy.  Arrogant  assumptions, 
tliey  will  be  at  once  reminded,  do  not  suit  the  present  state  of 
intelligence  in  this  land,  nor  the  genius  of  our  institutions. 
While  the  Episcopal  Church  shall  seek,  by  kind  and  gentle 
means,  to  widen  its  influence,  like  the  flowing  of  a  river,  or  like 
the  dews  of  heaven,  we  shall  hail  its  advances:  when  she 
departs  from  this  course,  and  seeks  to  utter  the  language  of 
authority  and  denunciation,  —  to  prostrate  other  churches,  as 
with  the  sweepings  of  the  mountain-torrent, — she  will  be  check- 
ed by  all  the  intelligence  and  piety  of  this  land  ;  and  she  will  be 
reminded,  by  a  voice  uttered  from  all  ihe  institutions  of  these 
times,  that  Episcopacy  has  had  its  reign  of  auOwrily  in  the 
dark  ages,  and  at  the  Vatican ;  and  that  the  very  genius  of  Pro- 
testantism is,  that  one  church  is  not  to  titter  the  Icngitage  of 
arrogance  over  another  ;  and  that  not  authority  or  denuncia- 
tion^ but  SCRIPTURAL  EXPOSITION,  is  to  determine  which  is  in 
accordance  xcith  the  Book  of  God. 

In  our  review,  we  expressed  at  length  our  feelings  toward  the 
Episcopal  Church,  (pp.  36-38.)  After  quoting  a  part  of  our 
remarks  on  this  subject,  the  author  of  the  Answer  makes  these 
candid  and  kind  observations  : — 

"  A  truly  splendid  euloginni  on  our  Church, — and  one  which 
does  credit  to  tlie  candor,  the  benevolence,  the  superiority  to 
prejudice,  of  the  elevated  mind  that  conceived  it,  and  the  honor- 
able frankness  whicli  gave  it  public  utterance.  With  the  feel- 
ings of  such  a  heart  a's  that  of  the  author  of  these  paragraphs, 
we  have,  we  can  have,  no  controversy  whatever, — we  rather 
desire  to  copy  them  more  perfectly  ourselves,  and  be  taught 
more  of  the  grand  duty  of  love,  by  an  opponent  who  so  nobly 
and  so  delightfully  exemplifies  it."  (p.  19.) 

The  author  of  the  "Answer"  quoted  the  whole  of  our  remarks, 
with  the  exception  of  the  last  five  lines.  In  those  lines,  we 
expressed  a  hope,  that  "the  Episcopal  Church  was  destined  yet 
to  be,  throughout,  the  warm  friend  of  revivals,  and  would  conse- 
crate her  wealth  and  power  to  the  work  of  making  a  perpetual 
aggression  on  the  territories  of  sin  and  of  death."  (Review, 
p.  36.)  Why  this  part  of  our  remarks  was  omitted,  as  not 
worthy  of  the  comment  of  being  a  "  splendid  eulogium  on  the 
Church,"  we  know  not.  The  fact  was  striking.  We  were  not 
"amazed"  by  it;  but  we  were  conscious  of  that  feeling  of  pen- 
siveness,  which  involuntarily  steals  over  the  soul,  when  a  Chris- 
tian, high  in  office  and  in  talent,  evinces  any  degree  of  cold- 
ness toward  the  great  work  of  converting  the  world.  We  could 
not  but  ask  ourselves.  Is  this  to  be  interpreted  as  an  indication, 
that  the  author  of  the  "  Answer"  is  alarmed  at  the  word  reviv- 
als ?    Are  we  to  consider  it  as  an  indication,  that  he  could  not 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  173 

join  lis  in  the  wish,  that  the  weaUh  and  power  of  tlie  Episcopal 
Chiircn  should  be  consecrated  to  the  work  of  saving  the  world  ? 
Are  we  to  understand,  that  tiiere  is  such  a  fear  of  the  word 
revivals,  and  sucli  a  dread  of  an  entire  consecration  of  wealth 
and  power  to  fulfil  the  special  command  of  Christ,  as  to  induce 
the  auliior  of  the  "  Answer"  to  pause, — in  mcdias  res, — in  the 
very  midst  of  a  quotation,  rather  than  repeat  or  write  the  word 
revivals,  or  speak  of  such  a  consecration  ?  It  may  have  been, 
indeed,  wholly  an  inadvertent  omission;  and  as  we  prefer  such 
an  interpretation,  to  one  which  implies  suspicion  or  improper 
motive,  we  shall  close  this  article  as  we  did  the  former,  with  the 
wish, — a  wish  whicli  shall  never  depart  from  our  heart,  —  that, 
whatever  may  be  the  strength  or  the  numbers  of  the  Episcopal 
Ciiurch,  when  the  Son  of  God  shall  come  to  take  to  himself  his 
great  power,  she  may  be  found  foremost  among  the  friends  of 
REVIVALS,  —  of  pure  spiritual  piety,  and  engaged  with  untiring 
zeal  amidst  the  van  of  the  Christian  host,  in  making  a  perpetual 

on 

15" 


REMARKS 

ON  THE 

REV.  MK.  BARNES'  SECOND  REVIEW  OP  "EPISCOPACY 
TESTED  BY  SCRIPTURE." 


The  tract  "  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture,"  remained  more 
than  three  years  willioiit  any  attempt  having  been  made  In 
reply  to  it.  In  March,  1834,  it  was  reviewed  in  tlie  Chrisiian 
Spectator  by,  as  is  now  avowed,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Barnes.  In  May 
foUowintr,  an  answer  to  this  review  appeared  in  the  Protestant 
Episcopalian.  And  in  March,  1835,  Mr.  Barnes  issues  liis 
second  review,  in  reply  to  this  answer;  the  two  reviews  being 
leprinted  in  coulinuation,  in  a  small  volume,  under  the  title, 
"The  Scriptural  Argument  for  Episcopacy  Examined."  The 
volume  has  been  kindly  sent  us  by  the  author.  Ours  is  the 
next  turn,  and  we  accordingly  present  a  rejoinder. 

We  deem  it  a  source  of  unfeigned  gratulaiion,  that  our  oppo- 
nent in  this  controversy  has  an  exalted  standing  in  his  own 
denomination,  and  in  the  community  at  large;  that  he  is  a  gen- 
tleman of  talents  and  learning,  and  of  entire  courtesy — and  one 
to  whose  piety  and  Chrisiian  attainments  it  is  a  pleasure  to  do 
homage. 

But  be  the  personal  character  and  qualifications  of  contro- 
verlists  what  ihey  may,  themselves  are  not  infallible.  They 
may  make  mistakes,  argue  inconclusively,  and  even  contradict 
themselves.  And  the  CHUse  of  truth  requires  that  their  argu- 
ments be  looked  into.  This  is  the  duly  that  now  devolves 
on  us. 

Our  Rev.  opponent  does  us  too  mtich  honor  in  taking  for 
granted  that  in  our  Tract  and  Answer,  "the  scriptural  argument 
for  Episcopacy  is  now  fairly  and  entirdy  before  the  world." 
There  are  other  scriptural  topics  used  by  other  writers;  such  as 
the  aposileship  of  Epaphroditus ;  that  of  the  "  messengers 
[apostles]  of  the  churches;"  the  probable  deaconship  of  the 
seventy  disciples;  the  rise  of  the  twelve  to  their  full  aposileship 
by  three  steps;  the  remarkable  prophecy  that,  after  the  Jewish 
dispensation.  God  would  "  take  of  [his  pectple]  for  priests  and 
for  Levites,"  which  means,  as  Old  Testament  language,  "for  a 
high  priest,  for  priests,  and  for  Levites  ;"  the  existence  of  those 
three  orders  in  the  .Mosaic  Church  ;  and,  —  parlici'larly  if  it  be 
allowed  that  the  whole  Christian  priesthood,  as  well  as  that  of 
Christ  himself,  is  "after  the  order  of  Melcliisedcc,"  —  the  fact, 
that  in  the  patriarchal  branch  of  that  order  there  were  both 

(    175   ) 


176  REMARKS    ON    A    SECOND    REVIEW    OF 

"liigh  priests"  and  "priests."  These  topics  may  all  be  used 
witli  more  or  less  advantage  for  Episcopacy  ;  and  they  all  are 
directly  scriptural  ;  yet  not  one  of  them  is  adverted  to  in  the 
Tract,  and  only  two  in  the  Answer.  Our  reason  was,  that  we 
did  not  need  them;  we  selected  snch  arguments  from  Scripture 
as  would  fall  readily  into  the  consecutive  train  of  an  inductive 
course  of  reasoning;  and  we  omitted  all  others.  But  we  did  not 
mean  to  renounce  the  right  to  appeal  to  those  we  did  not  there 
adduce;  some  of  them  we  have  employed  in  other  compositions. 
Hence,  should  Mr.  Barnes  succeed  in  refuting  "Episcopacy 
Tested  by  Scripture,"  he  has  further  work  before  him,  if  he 
would  refute  the  whole  scriptural  claim  of  Episcopacy. 

Equally  mistaken  is  our  Rev.  opponent  in  the  allegation  that 
we  discarded,  in  the  Tract,  all  use  of  the  fathers,  and  all  other 
extraneous  considerations.  He  has  enlarged  on  this  allegation 
in  his  second  review,  and  thinks  that  we  have  retracted  the 
admission  with  which  we  set  out,  and  that  we  manifest  an 
apprehension  that  our  cause  requires  propping  from  these 
quarters.  Not  so.  We  have  neither  changed  our  position,  nor 
have  any  fears  for  its  strength.  All  we  have  said  in  our  answer 
is,  that  the  fathers  may  be  used  as  helps  in  interpreting  Scrip- 
lure  ;  they  form  "an  historical  basis"  for  investigating  the 
sacred  writings,  as  inspired  history,  on  the  subject  of  Episco- 
pacy: there  was  no  need,  therefore,  we  may  say  in  passing,  of 
quoting  Webster  on  the  word  "  basis,"  and  enlarging  so  inge- 
niously on  the  over-ample  significancy  that  may  be  put  on  it. 
In  the  Tract,  we  began  with  these  declarations:  "The  claim  of 
Episcopacy  to  be  of  Divine  institution,  and  therefore  obligatory 
on  the  Church,  rests  fundamentalhi  on  the  one  question.  Has 
it  the  authority  of  Scripture  ?  If  it  has  not,  it  is  not  necessarily 
binding."  "No  argument  is  worth  taking  into  account,  that  has 
not  a  palpable  hearing  on  the  clear  and  naked  topic — the  scrip- 
tural evidence  of  Episcopacy."  Now,  do  such  declarations  just- 
ify the  notion  that  "the  only  books"  to  be  referred  to  in  the 
discussion,  are  those  of  Scripture?  Are  lexicons  to  be  discarded 
in  a  mere/y  scriptural  argument?  books  of  illustration?  com- 
mentators— seeing  an  inquirer  into  this  subject  is  but  aiming  to 
be  a  commentator?  common-sense  and  common-usage  methods 
of  interpreting?  If  not,  then  why  extrude  the  fathers — not  as 
furnishing  an  independent  authority  for  the  matter  in  question, 
but  as  affording  one  "basis"  among  others,  for  ascertaining  the 
sense  of  the  inspired  authorities?  Accordingly  we  announced, 
in  the  third  paragraph  of  the  Tract,  that  although  "  little  or  no 
reference  to  the  fathers"  would  there  be  made,  yet  it  was  "  not 
because  their  testimony  is  depreciated  ;  for  it  is  of  paramount 
value,  in  showing  how  the  Scriptures  connected  with  this  con- 
troversy were  interpreted  by  those  who  knew  how  the  apostles 
themselves  understood  them."  Surely  an  announcement  so 
plain  might  have  been  sufficient  to  save  the  Rev.  reviewer  his 
many  and  earnest  remarks  on  this  point.     We  left  the  fathers 


Episcopacy  tested  by  scripture.  177 

out  of  our  line  of  argument  in  the  Tract,  except  as  following 
where  others  led  us  ;  neither  did  we  appeal  to  them  even  once, 
except  as  following  ttie  reviewer  in  the  Answer;  nor  do  we 
purpose  doing  more,  while  the  debate  on  Episcopacy  is  confined 
to  Scripture.  But  this  does  not  imply  tiial  we  treat  tiiem  as 
non-entities.  Episcopacv  can  do  without  tiiem  ;  yet  she  re- 
joices to  be  in'lh  them.  Xonsidering  tlie  prejudice  against  them, 
in  part,  perhaps,  well  founded,  tlie  readier  comprehension  of  a 
merely  scriptural  appeal,  and  the  prompt  hearing  that  is  accord- 
ed it,  we  deemed  it  proper  to  submit  to  the  public  an  argument 
of  the  latter  sort — nor  is  our  confidence  in  it  diminished.  But 
every  mind  that  claims  prerogative  for  itself,  must  allow  the 
fair  claims  of  mind  in  general,  of  other  minds,  cceten's  paribiin — 
must  of  course  allow  reasonable  deference  to  the  fathers — and, 
for  matters  of  testimony  concerning  the  things  of  Scripture, 
must  allow  the  earli/  fathers  to  be  witnesses  of  even  "  paramount 
value,"  provided  the  thing  they  attest  be  really  found  or  inti- 
mated in  that  volume. 

'I'his  doing  justice  to  the  fathers  is,  be  it  noted,  merely  a 
defence  of  the  consistency  of  our  two  productions,  the  Tract 
and  the  Answer.  In  neither  of  them  have  we  made  use  of  those 
aiUhorities  for  the  main  purposes  of  the  discussion.  The 
reviewer  was  mistaken,  in  both  fact  and  construction,  when  he 
allowed  himself  to  write  thus:  "Slight  circumstances  often 
show  strong  inclinations,  and  habits  of  mind.  How  strong  a 
hold  this  reference  to  other  'considerations'  than  the  Scriptures, 
has  taken  upon  the  mind  of  the  author  of  the  Tract,  «nd  how 
rehiciant  he  was  to  part  with  the  'extraneous'  argument  from 
the  fathers,  is  shown  by  the  fact,  that  he  again  recurs  to  it  in 
the  'Answer,'  and  presents  it  at  much  greater  length."  In  point 
of  fact,  the  "Answer"  does  »oMouch  the  argunient  from  the 
fathers,  except  in  two  slight  allusions  to  Ignatius  ;  and  in  mak- 
ing tho'^e  allusions  we  merely  followed  the  reviewer,  who  had 
himself  glanced  at  the  same  writer. 

And  so  as  to  other  "  extraneous"  considerations,  we  adverted 
to  them  in  the  Answer,  because  the  reviewer  maintained  strenu- 
ously that  the  "  burden  of  proof"  lay  on  us  ;  for  how  ca7i  the 
question,  On  whom  lies  tiiis  burden?  be  decided,  without  admit- 
tinsr  extraneous  topics?  or  rather,  the  topics  bearing  on  this 
qui'siion  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  extraneous  to  the  scriptural 
argument^  though  soine  of  them  are  not  contained  in  Scripture. 
AV"hen  we  read  that  the  sun  stood  still,  we  superinduce  a  strictly 
pertinent  exposition  from  out  of  Scripture,  from  philosophy, 
and  affirm  that  it  was  the  earth  that  stood  still  :  this  surely 
is  not  extraneous  to  scriptural  exposition.  What  the  Tract 
objected  to  was,  "  extraneous  o?2r/ irrt'/trr/?/^''  lualttT;  if  relevant, 
no  tof)ic  is  to  be  rejected.  For  example  :  the  objection  founded 
on  aniiuHiiig  the  orders  of  Non-episc(»pal  ministers,  and  even  on 
unchurching  Non  episcopalians,  is  a  consideration  both  foreign 
and  irrelevant  to  the  debate  on  Episcopacy ;  because,  if  these 


178  REMARKS   ON    A   SECOND   REVIEW    OF 

consequences  are  involved  in  the  decision,  they  must  be  put  at 
issue,  or  the  debate  be  silenced  :  and  to  argue  against  Episcopal 
claiius  because  these  results  may  flow  from  their  establishment, 
is  so  far  to  take  for  granted  that  we  have  not  truth  on  our  side. 
But  we  do  not  stray  itUo  irrelevant  ground,  when  we  adduce 
the  facts,  that  there  were  or  are  various  grades  in  the  ministries 
of  tlie  Patriarchal  and  Jewish  Churches,  and  in  those  of  Hea- 
thenism, as  a  presumptive  argument  tlial  the  same  feature  would 
be  engrafted  on  Christianity;  and  when  we  affirm  tliat  a  similar 
presumption  arises  from  there  being  various  grades  among  civil, 
military,  naval,  corporation,  and  society  officers.  The  reviewer, 
indeed,  asserts  that  his  denomination  fulfils  what  is  demanded 
by  this  latter  presumption,  by  having  the  "offices"  of  pastors, 
ruling  elders  and  deacons:  but  this  we  deem  a  play  on  the  word 
"officers,"  rather  than  a  grasping  of  the  real  argument.  Tlie 
real  argument  is,  that  there  must  be  such  grades  of  officers  as 
will  discharge  the  functions  of  government  as  they  are  usually 
discharged.  Would  he  have  no  iiigher  civil  officers  tlian  tlie 
first  judge  of  a  county,  or  the  president  judge  of  a  district  ?  yet 
a  county  or  district  is  much  larger  than  a  Presbyterian  parish. 
Would  he  say  that  the  judges,  sheriff's,  and  constables  fill  up  tlie 
analogy  with  ordinary  civil  governments?  If  not,  then  he 
wants  a  governor  over  them,  and  in  that  feature  we  have  so  much 
presumptive  argument  for  a  bishop.  The  presumption  drawn 
from  the  various  grades  of  the  priesthoods  of  other  religions  is 
so  decisively  in  our  favor,  that  the  reviewer  passes  it  in  silence — 
Non-episcopalians  have  but  one  grade  to  minister  in  sacred 
things,  and  no  superior  grade  to  govern  the  other  ministers. 

We  regard  then  our  presumptive  argument  drawn  from  these 
numerous  facts,  there  being  also  no  exceptions  worth  noticing, 
as  uninjured  by  Mr.  Barnes.  And  we  assert  that  it  clearly 
throws  the  burden  of  proof  on  the  parity  side  of  the  question; 
we  have  a  right  to  enter  on  the  investigation  of  Scripture  with 
the  presumption  that  the  Christian  ministry  was  constituted,  like 
all  other  muiistries,  with  a  distinction  of  ranks  within  itself. 
Nor  is  this  right  founded  on  considerations  that  are  either  irre- 
levant or  extraneous  to  the  scriptural  argument. 

We  go  to  Scripture.  We  there  find  mention  of"  apostles  and 
elders,"  and  of  "bishops  and  deacons;"  elders  and  [presbyter] 
bishops  are  the  same,  by  the  concession  of  both  parties;  and 
thus  we  have  "  apostles,  and  elders,  and  deacons,"  the  tliree 
orders  of  Episcopacy.  So  far  the  matter  seems  clear.  But 
objections  are  raised.  1.  It  is  alleged,  that  the  expression 
"apostles  and  elders"  is  our  '■'■lonely  Scripture  proof  of  the 
sweeping  claims  that  the  apostles  only  had  the  power  of  ordina- 
tion, and  that  this  was  the  peculiarity  of  the  office."  But  we 
did  not  adduce  this  scripture  to  siiow  what  powers  the  apostles 
had,  but  only  to  show  that  they  were  a  class  distinct  from  the 
elders,  and,  as  combined  with  other  scriptural  considerations, 
that  they  were   "superior  to  them   in   ministerial  power  and 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  179 

rights:"  the  nature  of  this  superiority  in  power  and  rights  was 
a  "^different  brancli  of  the  argument;  and  that  certain  power? 
and  riglits  belonged  to  liie  ajioslles,  to  tlie  exclusion  of  presby- 
ters, was  made  lo  appear  from  other  scriptures.  Neither  is  it 
quite  correct  to  represent  the  expression  "apostles  ami  elders'- 
as  only  one  ''  passage,"  one  ''  text,"  as  "  the  solitary  text,"  for  it 
occurs"  at  least  six  limes,  and  is  a  mode  of  speaking  very  remark- 
ably adhered  to  in  all  that  relates  to  tlie  council  at  Jertisalem. 
where  tlie  distinction  in  priestly  rank,  would  naturally  be  recog- 
nised in  a  formal  manner.  2.  It  is  further  olijected,  that  though 
this  expression  shows  "  that  there  was  a  distinction  of  some  sort 
between  the  apostles  r?/?(:/ elders,"  it  does  not  prove  the  distinction 
to  have  been  an  official  one.  Taken  alone  it  does  not ;  but  com- 
bined wit!)  the  other  scriptural  considerations  adverted  to,  it  does: 
no  other  explanation,  as  the  Tract  (p.  15)  sufficiently  evinced, 
will  stand.  And  this  is  allowed  by  Mr.  Barnes  with  regard  to 
all  the  other  explanations,  except  one,  to  wjiich,  therefore,  we 
next  turn.  3.  In  his  first  review,  Mr.  B.  regarded  as  the  apos- 
tolic distinction,  their  being  selected  to  bear  witness  to  the 
"  sufferings"  and  the  "  resurrection  "  of  Christ.  In  his  second 
review,  he  expands  the  ground  of  their  distinction  —  they  were 
"  appointed  to  be  witnesses  of  his  entire  ministry,  including  the 
fact  of  his  resurrection."  This  expansion  is  unfortunate,  for 
Paul  was  one  of  the  Apostles,  in  the  highest  sense  —  in  every 
sense;  yet,  though  a  witness  of  ihe  resurrection,  he  certainly 
was  not  a  witness  of  the  "entire  ministry  "  of  Christ.  Nor  do 
we  read  that  lie  witnessed  his  "sufferings."  Hence,  we  may 
regard  the  question  concerning  the  apostolic  distinction,  in 
the  phrase  "apostles  o/k/ elders,"  as  being  between  their  func- 
tion as  special  witnesses  of  the  resuiTection,  and  the  official 
snperiorilv  we  claim  for  thein.  Now,  what  said  the  Tract  on 
this  point?  "Though  the  twelve  Apostles  were  selected  as  special 
witnesses  of  the  resurrection,  yet  others  received  that  appella- 
tion who  were  not  thus  selected,  as  Timothy,  Silvamis,  Andro- 
nicus,  Junia,"  &c.  —  we  ought  to  have  added  Barnabas,  and 
referred  also  to  the  "  false  apostles,"  even  down  to  the  year  96, 
in  "  the  church  of  Ephesus."  What  did  the  reviewer  say  of 
this  part  of  the  Tract?  not  a  word;  he  omitted  our  allusion  to 
the  Apostles  as  "special  witnesses  of  the  resurrection;"  and 
went  on  to  a  long  argument  to  prove  this  fact,  and  that  in  this 
fact  rested  their  distinction.  To  this  plea  the  Answer  replies, 
"  Was  this  distinction  the  one  that  led  to  the  expression  'apos- 
tles and  elders?'  Surely  not.  Among  those  apostles  was  Bar- 
nabas, and  perhaps  Silas,  neither  of  whom  was  a  special  witness 
of  the  resurrection.  Besides,  the  expression  is  used  with  imme- 
diate reference  to  tlie  council  at  Jerusalem,  and  why,  in  a  coun- 
cil actint,'  on  questions  concerning  '  idols,  blood,  things  strangled, 
and  licentiousness,'  should  the  special  witnesses  of  the  resur- 
rection have,  as  such,  peculiar  authority  ?"  Here  are  two  con- 
clusive arguments  against  the  reviewer's  explanation  of  these 


180  REMARKS   ON   A   SECOND   REVIEW   OP 

words ;  yet  not  the  least  attention  is  given  them  in  the  second 
Review  ;  it  being  merely  alleged  that  we  took  "  no  notice"  of  his 
"■texts."  But  was  not  this  a  sufficient  notice  of  them?  did  it 
not  sliow,  that  let  his  texts  prove  what  they  might,  they  did  not 
prove  that,  in  the  council  at  Jerusalem,  the  "Apostles"  were 
distinguished  from  the  "elders,"  as  being  special  witnesses  of 
liie  resurrection?  To  what,  however,  do  liis  texts  amount? 
they  merely  declare  the  thirteen  Apostles  to  be  "  witnesses,"  to 
be  "chosen"  as  witnesses,  to  be  "ordained"  as  witnesses;  but 
does  tliis  imply  that  they  were  chosen  and  ordained  for  nothing 
else?  if  so,  then  the  thirteen  were  not  chosen  or  ordained  to  be 
ministers  of  the  Gospel  ?  if,  however,  they  were  chosen  and 
ordained  to  be  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  as  Mr.  Barnes  allows  the 
eleven  to  have  been  very  early,  then  their  selection  and  ordina- 
tion was  not  as  special  witnesses  merely  ;  and  we  go  to  Scrip- 
lure  to  see  what  sort  of  ministers  they  were,  and  in  what  lay 
the  distinction  which  placed  them,  and  the  others  called  apostles, 
in  a  class  separate  from  the  ministers  called  elders.  By  such 
an  appeal  to  Scripture  we  find,  as  the  Tract  will  show,  that  the 
apostles  ordained,  and  presbyters  did  not ;  that  the  apostles  had 
authority  over  presbyters ;  and  that  they  exercised  discipline 
over  their  heads. 

But  Mr.  Barnes  will  perhaps  remind  us  that  we  have  still 
omitted  one  of  his  texts — "  Am  I  not  an  apostle  ?  am  I  not  free? 
have  I  not  seen  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  ?  are  not  ye  my  work  in 
the  Lord  ?"  From  these  words  he  infers,  in  common  with  some 
other  writers,  that  to  have  "  seen"  Christ  was  an  essential  quali- 
fication for  the  apostleship.  But  surely,  in  the  first  place,  this 
is  taking-  the  drift  of  Paul's  argument  for  granted,  for  we  may 
just  as  well  understand  the  passage  as  giving  four  separate 
topics  of  animadversion  on  certain  Corinthians  for  their  oppo- 
sition to  him,  as  regard  the  third  topic  in  the  light  of  a  proof  o( 
the  first.  In  the  next  place,  if  the  third  topic  is  a  proof  of  the 
first,  the  second  ought  to  be  the  same,  and  then  "  freedom,"  i.  e. 
the  rigtit  to  take  clerical  maintenance,  or  decline  it,  was  one  of 
the  marks  of  tlie  thirteen  pre-eminent  "  apostles!"  whereas  it 
belonged  to  every  minister.  So  of  the  fourth  topic  ;  were  not 
Paul  and  all  the  others  "apostles"  as  soon  as  they  had  their 
commission,  and  before  they  had  done  any  of  their  "  work  in 
the  Lord  ?"  We  say  then,  that  the  Non-episcopal  argument 
drawn  from  this  passage  is  utterly  valueless.  Dr.  Hammond 
gives  the  true  meaning — ih.e  full  meaning,  for  it  cannot  be  made 
to  imply  more,  without  a  pclitio  principii,  and  without  making 
nonsense  of  the  second  and  fourth  topics.  "  I  may  surely  say 
four  things  of  myself:  I.  That  I  am  an  apostle  of  Christ,  called 
from  heaven  immediately  to  that  office;  2.  That  I  had  no  obli- 
gation to  do  what  I  have  done  among  you,  that  is,  to  preach  on 
free  cost  to  you,  as  I  have;  that  I  discern  my  Christian  liberty 
so  well  that  I  know  I  might  have  done  otherwise  ;  3.  That 
though  I  was  none  of  Christ's  followers  here  on  earth,  yet  J 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  181 

have  been  equalled  to  them  by  seeing  and  being  spoken  to  by 
Christ  out  of  heaven;  and,  4.  Tliat  I  am  certainly  he  lliat  con- 
verted you  to  the  faith,  tliat  planted  the  Gospel  at  Corinth,  and 
&o  surely  am  not  unworiiiy  to  be  considered  by  you."  'J"o  close 
this  part  of  the  discussion,  we  suggest,  that  regarding  these  four 
topics  as  separate,  vvliich  tliey  certainly  are,  St.  Paul  here  makes 
liis  '•  apostleship"  a  privilege  entirely  distinct  from  that  of  his 
having  "seen  Jesus  Chhist." 

Wlien  Paul  exclaimed,  "  Are  all  apostles?"  he  obviously 
allowed  that  some  might  be  apostles  who  were  imt  special  wit- 
nesses of  tiie  resurrection.  If  none  others  could  be  apostles,  the 
exclamation,  would  have  been  against  an  argument  of  straw, 
'i'iie  same  result  flows  from  the  case  of  the  "  false  apostles,"  who 
continued  their  pretensions  down  to  the  year  96.  (Rev.  ii.  2.) 
There  could  liave  been  no  false  apostles,  had  there  been  no  real 
ones  but  the  tliirteeu — none  but  those  who  were  special  witnesses 
of  llie  resurrection.  Unless  tiie  true  apostles  had  become 
numerous,  tlie  false  would  have  had  no  chance  for  their  impos- 
ture. And  in  the  year  96  none  of  the  thirteen  remained  but 
St.  John  ;  yet  there  weic  then  so  many  apostles  that  pretenders 
could  claim  tlie  oflice  without  being  mstanlly  rejected  as  not 

having  been  "  special  witnesses." We  hope  the  Rev.  reviewer 

is  now  satisfied  with  our  "  notice"  of  his  "  proof-texts." 

We  stated  in  the  Tract  that  "it  would  not  be  questioned"  lliat 
the  apostles  were  officially  superior  to  the  elders.  Our  Rev. 
opponent,  without  denying  this  assertion,  i.  e.  "  it  will  not  be 
questioned,"  placed  it  in  a  ridiculous  light.  We  then  adduced 
several  Presbyterian  authorities,  who  allowed  the  apostles'  offi- 
cial superiority,  and  who  thus  proved  that  litis  assertion  of  ours 
was  fairly  made.  To  this  the  reviewer  replies,  that  we  quoted 
them  "  to  prove  that  the  apostles  were  superior  to  the  elders  ;" 
whereas  we  brought  them,  not  to  prove  the  fact,  but  merely  that 
the  fact  "  would  not  be  questioned"  by  Presbyterians — and  surely 
for  this  purpose,  their  sentiments  are  not  to  be  regarded  as 
"extraneous  considerations."  The  reviewer  further  replies 
that  these  divines  only  assert  the  apostles  to  be  superior  to  tht 
elders"  in  some  respects,  or,  that  tiiere  was  a  distinction  between 
tliem."  Not  so  ;  they  do  not  speak  thus  vaguely  ;  the  extracts 
under  four  of  the  six  heads  assert  tiieir  "official"  superiority; 
that  from  Dr.  Miller,  their  "vested  authority  over  other  mini.s- 
tcrs ;"  and  Dr.  Campbell  calls  them  "universal  bishops,"  as 
distinguished  from  local  pastors  or  parochial  bishops.  On  the 
point  that  the  ministerial  superiority  of  the  apostles  "  would 
not  be  questioned,"  tiie  authority  of  these  divines  was  ex- 
pliitit,  and  sufficient  to  justify  the  assertion.  Nor  do  we  per- 
ceive that  that  assertion  is  even  now  denied  or  questioned  by 
the  reviewer. 

In  our  Answer  to  the  first  Review,  we  expanded  a  certain 
note  in  the  'I'ract,  and  showed  tliut  tlie  Apostle  Paid  exercised 
discipline,  and  claimed  the  right  of  exercising  discipline,  in 
16 


182  REMARKS    ON    A   SECOND    REVIEW   OF 

churches  were  there  were  elders  ;  the  cases  recorded  being  the 
churclies  of  Corinth  and  Epiiesus.  To  this  our  Rev.  opponent 
objects — 1.  Tiiat  it  is  "  remarkable  "  that  only  the  disciplinary 
acts  of  Paul  are  mentioned  in  Scripture,  not  those  of  the  t)ther 
Apostles  :  but  is  it  not  just  as  "  remarkable"  that,  in  the  Acts, 
after  the  travels  and  doings  of  Paul  are  fairly  introduced  to 
notice,  almost  nothing  is  said  of  the  travels  and  doings  of  the 
n^st  of  the  thirteen  ?  is  it  not  just  as  remarkable  that  Paul  fur- 
nishes fourteen  epistles,  and  all  the  rest  only  seven?  2.  Heobjccts 
that  so  few  instances  of  disci ()line  are  recorded  :  but  we  reply, 
that  we  must  take  the  record  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  we  find  it, 
and  make  it  our  authority;  that  there  are  no  cases  j-ecorded  of 
discipline  by  presbyters;  and  that  we  adduced  passages  in  wliich 
tlie  right  to  inflict  discipline  is  claimed  by  an  apostle  indivi- 
duall}',  without  intimating  the  operation  or  the  co-opcrati(m  of 
the  presbyters  concerned  ;  which  passages  the  reviewer  leaves 
uimoliced.  3.  He  objects  that  in  tiie  cases  of  discipline  exer- 
cised by  Paul,  Timothy  and  Titus  were  present  and  unnoticed, 
wjiich  is  so  much  disparagement  of  their  Episcopal  claims. 
Here  also  we  have  an  easy  reply  ;  we  never  said,  as  the  reviewer 
alleges,  that  Titus  was  in  Corinth  or  in  Ephesus  when  these  acts 
of  discipline  respectively  were  inflicted  ;  neither  does  he  attempt 
to  prove  it.  That  Timothy  was  not  in  Corinth  at  that  time,  or 
not  expected  to  be  there,  though  he  had  been  sent  thither,  is 
evident  from  the  last  chapter  of  the  first  epistle — "?/'Timotheus 
co»?p,"  &c.;  and  that  the  discipline  mentioned  had  been  inflicted 
at  Ephesus  before  Timothy  was  placed  there,  is  twice  allowed 
by  the  reviewer  himself;  the  contrary  has  never  been  main- 
tained by  us;  and  Paul  speaks  of  it  as  a  past  occurrence  in 
writing  the  first  epistle  to  Timothy;  it  happened  previous  to 
the  time  of  Timothy's  being  put  in  charge  of  that  diocese. 
How  tlien  stand  these  cases?  just  as  was  stated  in  our  Tract 
and  Answer.  Paul  individually  inflicts  discipline  in  Corinth 
and  Epiiesus,  though  there  were  elders  in  both  churches,  who, 
on  the  Presbyterian  theory,  ought  to  have  inflicted  it.  4.  But  it  is 
furtiier  objected,  that  they  were  peculiar  cases;  bodily  disease, 
miraculously  produced,  being  part  of  the  penalty;  and  none  but 
the  Apostles  (the  thirteen)  having  this  miraculous  power.  Such 
we  understand  to  be  the  reviewer's  argument.  We  think,  how- 
ever, it  is  of  no  force.  In  the  case  at  Corinth,  the  oflender  was 
"  delivered  unto  Satan,  for  the  destruction  of  the  flesh  ;"  but  in 
that  at  Ephesus,  the  offenders  were  only  "  delivered  unto 
Satan."  Now,  as  to  the  "  delivery  to  Satan,"  it  means  only 
excommunication — so  we  think,  with  many  commentators — and 
It  certainly  need  not  mean  any  thinjz  more:  as  the  conversion  of 
men,  and  bringing  them  into  the  Church,  was  "turning  them 
from  the  power  of  Satan  unto  Gou,  that  they  might  receive  for- 
giveness of  sins  ;"  so  when  the  sins  of  any  one  were  "  retained," 
and  he  was  excommunicated,  he  was  ejected  from  the  favor  of 
God,  and  given  back  to  Satan.     la  the  Presbyterian  Forms  of 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY    SCRlPTdRE.  183 

Process.  (1. 15,)  one  of  these  very  passages  is  quoted  as  authority 
for  '"the  highest  censure  of  the  Churcli,"*  Such  was  the  disci- 
pline in  the  cases  at  Ephesus ;  and  it  was  the  act,  not  of  liie 
presbyters,  but  of  an  apostle.  As  to  the  expression,  '•  llie 
desirnclicn  of  tlie  flesh,"  some  commentators  do  not  interpret  it 
of  a  miraculous  infliction;  others  do:  conceding  the  latter,  we 
are  to  remember  that  there  were  "workers  of  miracles"  in 
Corinth;  and  tlierefore,  if  that  church  or  its  elders  had  the 
power  of  supreme  discipline,  they  could  have  exei'cised  it  even 
with  this  extraordinary  penalty,  without  the  intervention  of 
St.  Paul :  yet  he  alone  does  this  act,  which  proves  that  supreme 
discipline  was  not  intrusted  to  either  the  church  or  its  elders. 
Such  was  the  mode  of  passing  the  "highest  censure"  on  the 
oflfender  at  Corinth. 

It  is  further  alleged,  liowever,  by  our  Rev.  opponent,  that  in 
the  context  of  one  of  these  passages.  (I  Cor.  v.)  "  it  is  supposed 
tliat  they  [the  church  at  Corinth]  did  themselves  usually  exer- 
cise discipline,"  nay,  that  Paul  "  supposes  that  it  ought  to  have 
been  done  in  this  case."  To  these  two  allegations  we  oppose 
the  reviewer's  own  words  in  tlie  next  paragraph  but  one — "  The 
circumstances  of  tlie  early  churches  were  such  as  to  make  this 

(ipo.'itolic  intervention  proper,  and  even  indispensable In 

most  cases  their  founders  were  with  them  but  a  few  weeks. f  and 
then  left  them  under  the  care  of  elders  ordained  frtun  among 
tlif aiselves.  Those  elders  would  be  poorly  qualified  to  dis- 
charge the  functions  of  their  office The  churclies  must  be 

imperfectly  organized;  unaccustomed  to  rigid  discipline;  ex- 
posed to  many  temptations;  easily  drawn  into  sin  ;  and  subject 
to  sreat  agitation  and  excitement."  Now,  if  such  were  the  con- 
dition of  both  elders  and  people  at  Corinth,  how  could  Paul 
have  expected  them  to  exercise  discipline,  either  in  this  aggra- 
vated case,  or  "  usually  ?"  or  how  can  the  reviewer  imagine 
that  Paul  looked  for  their  action,  when  he  declares  that  it  was 
'^morally  impossible  for  tiiem  to  act  ?  Nay,  if  such  were  "  the 
earh'  churclies,"  and  their  elders,  how  can  lie  claim  any  scrip- 
ture whatever  for  their  having  discipline  intrusted  to  them  ? — 
such  a  fact  would  be  a  final  ])resumplive  argument  against 
interpreting  Scripture  to  that  effect.  He  pleads,  however,  the 
clause,  "Do  not  ye  judge  them  that  are  wiiiiin"  the  chm-ch  ? 
So  doubtless  their  elders  did  in  lighter  matters,  even  to  the  lesser 
excommunication;    but  the  action  of  Paul  in  this  case  shows 


*  In  the  Biblical  Rp|icrtory  for  April,  1833,  (p.  232,)  we  find  the  snmo  use  of  the 
Btrfn;:ir  of  tliese  passajjes,  by  Uie  "  Antiburfihor  .Synoil,"  in  Scotland, — "  AccdhI- 
injly  the  sentence  of  the  greater  excommunicatios  was,  on  the  9lli  Auirnst, 
1749,  pronounced  iipop.  the  aforesaid  persons;  'casting  them  out  from  the  coninm- 
niim  of  the  Church  of  Christ  ;  dcliverinsf  them  uiilo  Salnu,  for  the  destTiiclion 
of  tliejieah,'  "  &c.  When  Presbyterians  want  this  pasna-^^e  of  Scripture  for  their  own 
purposes,  they  perceive  very  readily  that  it  does  not  relate  lo  a  snpernati:ral  penalty. 

t  At  Corinth,  Paul  "continued a  year  and  six  inontlis,"  and  " after  this  tarried 
there  ycl  a  good  wliilc."  (Acts  xviii.  11,  18.) 


184  REMARKS    ON    A   SECOND    REVIEW    OP 

that  they  did  not  inflict  the  greater.  The  clause,  indeed,  may 
not  refer  to  official  acts,  in  tiie  Corinthian  church,  but  only  to 
the  personal  discoiiiilenaiice  of  offenders;  hence  Doddridee 
says,  "Do  not  even  you,  in  your  nwre  private  capacili/,  iudge 
those  that  are  within  ?  I  have  taught  yon  tliat  every  private 
Christian  should  be  concerned  in  his  station  to  maintain  tlie  disci- 
pline of  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  to  bear  his  testimony  against 
disorderly  walkers,  which  may  at  present  have  a  place  in  it." 

So  of  the  case  at  Thessalonica — "If  any  man  obey  not  our 
word  by  this  epistle,  note  that  man,  and  have  no  company  with 
him,  that  he  may  be  ashamed."  Mr.  Barnes  declares  that  this 
was  a  direction  to  that  cJiurch  "  to  exercise  discipline."  But 
how  can  he  make  this  appear  ?  The  natural  sense  of  the  words 
is  that  Christians,  in  their  "  private  capacity,"  sliould  avoid  such 
offenders;  it  does  not  extend  to  official  proceedings.  He  wiio 
contends  for  the  latter  view,  must  allow  also  that  "the  elect 
lady"  exercised  discipline — "  If  any  man  come  unto  you,  and 
bring  not  this  doclriiie,  receive  him  not  into  your  house,  neither 
bid  him  God  speed."  Our  Rev.  opponent  will  see  that  his  mode 
of  arguing  proves  too  much.  He  surely  does  not  suppose  that 
ecclesiastical  discipline  was  committed  to  a  "  lady,"  or  to  a 
"  lady  and  her  children." 

Tlie  reviewer  brings  into  fresh  notice  the  elders  of  Ephesus, 
and  tiiose  addressed  by  St.  Peter,  and  concludes  that  ihey 
"  were  intrusted  with  the  pastoral  care  to  the  fullest  extent  .  .  . 
instructing,  directing,  and  governing  theyZoc/c."  Who  denies 
this  ?  not  we,  certainly  ;  except  so  far  as  an  appeal  to  the  bishop 
qualifies  the  expression  "  fullest  extent."  Neither  do  "  the 
canons  of  the  Episcopal  Church."  But  where  does  he  find  that 
elders  "  ruled"  elders?  that  presbyter-bishops  governed  presby- 
ter-bishops ?  Tiiat  is  the  point ;  and  the  Non-episcopal  world 
has  long  been  challenged,  but  in  vain,  to  make  it  good.  But  he 
is  unlucky  in  conceding  thus  plainly  '■'■pastoral  care  to  ihe  full- 
est extent"  to  the  elders  of  Ephesus:  for  he  says,  in  the  course 
of  a  few  pages,  "In  our  Review  we  showed  that  all  the  facts  in 
the  case  of  ihe  elders  at  Ephesus  are  met  by  the  supposition  that 
they  were  ruling  elders."  What!  Have  ruling  elders  "the 
pastoral  care  to  tUefidlest  extent?"  are  they  deemed  "  bishops" 
by  tlie  Presbyterians;  the  Ephesian  elders  being  thus  called  in 
Acts  XX.? — See  also  the  Presbyterian  Form  of  Government, 
ch.  iii.  Of  these  "bishops"  Mr.  Barnes  says — "There  is  no 
counsel  given  them  about  the  proper  mode  of  administering- 
the  sacraments,''^  implying  that  they  had  not  the  right  (o  do  so  ; 
yet  of  those  at  Phiiippi  he  writes — "The  other  class,  the  '  bish- 
ops,' constitute  the  preaching  order,  or  the  clergy,  those  to 
whom  were  comniilled  the  preaching  of  the  word,  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  sacraments,^''  &.c.  What  are  we  to  make  of  these 
contradictory  expositions?  Is  it  intended  to  save  the  Presbyte- 
rian argument,  that  there  were  no  "  clergy  "  at  Ephesus,  only 
"ruling  elders,"  when  Timothy  was  placed  there?    And  is  it 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BT    SCRIPTURK.  185 

asserted  tliat,  though  Philippi  included  "a  group  of  churches." 
Epiiesus  liad  but  '■■one  Hock,"  the  former  in  the  year  64,  tlu; 
latter  in  96,  to  elude  the  Episcopal  argument  drawn  from  "  iln; 
an^el  of  the  chiircli  of  Epliesus?"  V>  e  cannot  impute  liie 
unfairness  of  a  covert  motive  to  our  Rev.  opponent.  IJiii  m; 
hace  a  right  to  express  our  regret,  that  lie  was  not  more  vigilant 
against  mistakes  that  amount  to  inconsistency. 

lie  says  tliat  "  no  one  will  pretend  tliat  bishops  are  refern d 
to"  in  tiie  passages,  '-remember  tliem  which  have  the  rule  over 
you,"  •'  obey  them  that  iiave  the  rule  over  you."  Tliis  is  a  mis- 
take as  to  "one"  person  at  least;  for  ice  nuide  the  "assertion," 
in  tlie  Tract,  (p.  2  ',)  that  they  referred  to  "  the  Episcojjai 
ministry  :"  other  writers  also  take  tiie  same  view  of  tliese  pas- 
sages. We  even  intimated  that  they  amount  to  a  "commamr' 
to  conform  to  that,  the  only  scriptnral  model  of  the  holy  olIu'(\ 
And  we  now  intimate  the  same  of  tiie  passage,  "know  tin  in 
which  labor  among  you,  and  are  over  you  in  the  Lord" — and 
this  we  do,  though  our  Rev.  opponent  thinks  "  there  can  lie 
no  question"  that  it  is  '•  applied  to  presbyters."  Our  reason  he 
Mill  see  in  the  Tract. 

He  "asks  for  a  solitary  passage  which  directs  apostles  or 
prelates  to  administer  discipline."  If  he  means  to  halt  at  the 
icnrds  "  apostles"  and  "  prelates,"  he  will  halt  on  words  only,  not 
on  things.  We  call  Timothy  an  apostle,  and  Timothy  and  Titus 
prelates;  but  call  them  what  you  will,  the\'  indicidiuiU)/,  vvilii 
no  mention  of  tlie  elders,  are  desired  to  "  administer  discipline  " 
— yes,  frequently,  as  the 'i'ract  fully  evinced — ''  that  tlioit  niight- 
est  charge  some  that  they  leach  no  other  doctrine — against  an 
elder  receive  not  [thou'j  an  accusalioii,  but  before  two  or  three 
witnesses — them  that  sin,  rebuke  [thou']  before  all — I  chart'e 
thee,  that  thou,  observe  these  things — from  such  turn  [/f/iO!<] 
away,  or, such  turn  [thoril  away — whose  mouths  must  be  slop- 
ped   wherefore,  rebuke  [tJioii^  them  sharply,  that  they  may 

be  sound  in  the  faith — rebuke  [ihoul  with  all  antliorily.  Let  no 
man  despise  thee — a  man  that  is  a  heretic  [Jo  thon^  reject." 
All  these  directions  to  administer  discipline  are  given  to  indivi- 
dual ministers,  over  the  heads  of  the  elders.  Add  to  these  Ihe 
passages  in  which  the  actual  infliction  of  discipline,  or  the 
niGHT  to  inflict  it,  are  mentioned,  pertaining  to  apostles  and 
other  individuals,  without  reference  to  elders,  as  given  in  our 
'I'ract  and  Answer,  and  the  evidence  for  this  feature  of  Episco 
pacy  will  be  superabundant.  How,  in  the  face  of  the  first  [lor- 
tion  of  this  evidence,  th*t  relating  to  Timothy,  besides  what 
refers  to  his  right  to  ordain — iiow  could  tlie  reviewer  say,  that 
"  tiie  (;pistles  to  Tiinoihy  ....  contain  no  description  of  his  o\\  n 
oflice  as  a  prelate!"  they  do  describe  that  ofllce — Ihey  describe 
it  amply  and  clearly. 

Si>  clear  is  the  testimony  of  "  the  writings  of  Pa'il  "  of  Tinm-^ 
thy's  "having  first  received  the  episco()ate  at  Ephesus,"  tiiai 
Eusebius— so  at  least  it  appears  to  us— recognises,  that  tesii- 
10* 


186  REMARKS  ON   A     SECOND    REVIEW   OP 

mony.  In  B.  3,  ch.  4,  of  which  the  title  is,  "  The  first  Succes- 
sors of  the  Apostles,"  he  says,  "  But  how  many  and  which  of 
these,  actuated  by  a  genuine  zeal,  were  judj^ed  suitable  to 
feed  the  churches  est-ablislied  by  these  apostles,  it  is  not  easy  to 
say,  amj  further  than  may  be  ffalkered  from  the  writings  of 
Paul.  For  he,  indeed,  had  iunuinerable  fellow-laborers,  or  as 
he  himself  calls  them,  fellow-soldiers  in  the  Church.  Of  these 
the  greater  part  are  honored  with  an  indelible  remembrance  by 
him  ill  his  epistles,  where  he  gives  a  lasting  testimony  concern- 
ing them.  Luke  also,  in  his  Acts,  speaking  of  iiis  friends,  men- 
tions them  by  name.  Timothy,  indeed,  is  recorded  as  having 
first  received  the  episcopate  at  Ephesus,  as  Titus  also  was 
appointed  over  the  churches  in  Crete."  (Cruse's  Eusebius, 
p.  84.)  Eusebius  speaks  of  the  comparative  insufficiency  of  his 
other  sources  of  information  on  this  point,  as  contrasted  with 
"the  writings  of  Paul."  Those  "writings,"  then,  must  have 
been  his  authority,  or  at  least  sustained  him,  in  saying  that 
Timothy  was  set  "over"  tlie  churcli  at  Ephesus — he  construed 
them  as  Episcopalians  do.  He  did  the  same  with  the  scrip- 
tures relating  to  Titus. 

The  reviewer  still  insists  that  Timothy  is  not  called  an  "apos- 
tle" in  Scripture.  What  are  the  facts?  Paul  begins,  1  Thess., 
in  the  name  of  himself,  Silvaniis,  and  Timothy — in  the  second 
chapter  he  says,  "  We  might  have  been  burdensome  lo  you  as 
Wia  apostles  of  Christ" — and  that  he  does  not  u:e  the  plural 
number  in  the  singular  sense,  is  evident  in  the  next  verse  but  one, 
"  we  were  willing  to  have  imparted  unto  you  our  own  souls.^'' 
Now,  as  one  man  has  but  one  "  smil,"  if  Paul  were  speaking 
of  himself  only,  he  would  have  said  "  our  own  soul;"  but  as  he 
uses  the  plural  word  "souls,"  it  is  clear  that  he  alluded  there  to 
Silvanus  and  Timothy  with  himself.  Just  as  clear,  of  course,  it 
is,  that  he  alluded  to  all  the  tliree  in  the  phrase  "  apostles  of 
Christ" — and  thus  Silvanus  and  Timothy  are  called  "apos- 
tles" in  Scripture.  But  the  reviewer  objects  that,  in  a  previous 
verse  of  the  same  chapter,  Paul  speaks  of  the  persecution  at 
Philippi — "  u-e  were  shamefully  entreated;"  and  that  as  only 
Paul  and  Silas  were  beaten  and  put  in  prison,  Timothy  was  not 
with  them  in  that  city;  and  that  thus  the  plural  sense  of  "apos- 
tles" is  untenable.  We  have  answered,  that  Timothy  is  declared 
to  have  been  with  Paul  before  and  after  that  persecution, 
and  that  there  is  no  intimation  that  they  were  parted  in  the 
meantime.  We  further  answer — though  only  Paul  and  Silas 
were  beaten  and  imprisoned,  others  then  belonged  to  their 
company,  as  appears  from  the  expression,  "  the  same  followed 
Paul  and  ?fs,"  (Acts  xvi.  17,)  which  implies  that  besides  Silas, 
Luke  the  writer,  and  probably  others,  were  in  Paul's  retinue  at 
the  time;  these  were  not  so  severely  used;  and  this  destroys 
the  ground  taken  by  the  reviewer,  that  Timothy  could  not 
then  have  been  in  Philippi,  simply  because  he  did  not  suffer  as 
much  as  those  two.     Again :  Paul  says  to  the  Philippians,  of 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  187 

Timoiliy,  "Ye/c«oiPthe  proof  of  him,  that,  as  a  son  with  the 
father,  he  hath  served  with  me  in  the  Gospel,"  (ii.  22  ;)  this 
implies  that  the  Philippians  had  hecome  personally  acquainted 
will)  Timothy,  and  when  he  was  wilii  tliein  in  comjjany  with  Panl ; 
j-et  it  is  not  recorded  that  Paul  and  'I'imnthy  had  been  tofreiher 
at  Pliilippi,  except  at  tlie  time  of  the  persecution  mentioned  ; 
it  is  only  said  tiiey  were  afterward  in  ^lacedoiiia :  hence  Dod- 
dridge and  Macknisht  agree,  that  in  the  verse  quoted,  Paul 
alludes  to  Timothy's  being  in  that  city  at  the  time  mentioned. 
Indeed  we  know  of  no  one,  but  Mr.  Barnes,  who  denies  this 
fact.  Tliat  'I'imothy  is  left  out  of  sight  in  some  j)arts  of  the 
narrative,  in  Acts  xvi.  and  xvii ,  may  have  been  owing  to  his 
youth,  and  his  not  being  deemed  by  the  perseciitors  so  import- 
ant a  person  as  Paul  and  Silas;  besides  their  being  milder 
witli  him  on  account  of  his  Genlile  descent — they  "looked 
upon  Paid  and  Silas,"  says  Doddridge,  "as  much  more  consi- 
derable tiian  Timothy  and  Luke." — Hear,  on  the  meaning  of  the 
word  "apostles,"  the  opinion  of  Macknight:  "The  apostle  and 
his  assistants  were  not  influenced  by  any  of  those  motives 
wiiicli  actuate  impostors.  Instead  of  seeking  to  make  mcrselves 
powerful  or  rich  by  the  Gospel,  ice  never  demanded  the  honor 
of  obedience,  nor  of  maintenance,  either  from  you  or  from 
oihers;  although  v^e  could  have  been  burdensome  to  you  in 
both  these  respects,  as  the  apostles  of  Christ.  The  trulh  is,  as 
apostles^  they  had  authority  from  their  Master  to  enjoin  llieir 
disciples  what  was  fit."  This  he  says  in  the  "View"  preceding 
the  chapter.  In  the  translation  he  says,  "  As  Christ'.s  messen- 
gers"— so  decidedly  docs  the  word  a-nucToXoi  apply  to  all  the 
three  who  join  in  theepisllc.  Hear  also  the  opinion  of  T.  Hart- 
well  Home:  he  says,  in  his  Analysis  of  the  Epistle,  "The 
character,  behavior  and  views  of  the  first  preachers  of  the  Gos- 
pel are  an  evidence  of  its  trulh.  The  apostles  and  their  assist- 
ants, by  preaching  the  Gospel,  every  where  brought  upon  them- 
selves all  manner  of  jiresent  evils,  without  obtaining  the  least 
temporal  advaiitat^e."  Again,  "  The  second  argument,  taken  from 
the  character,  behavior,  and  views  of  its  first  preachers.'^  This 
Divine  regards  Paul  as  ir,cliuliiig  his  "assistants"  with  himself, 
through  tlie  wliole  passage  in  which  the  word  "  apostles"  is 
found  ;  it  follows,  of  course,  that  they  also  are  here  called  apos- 
tles. Hear,  yet  further,  tlic  opinion  of  Matthew  Henry  :  he  says, 
on  this  chapter,  Paul  "  could  appeal  to  the  Thessaloniaus,  how 
faithfully  he,  and  Silas,  and  Tiinotheus  .  .  .  .  had  discharged 
their  ofiice " — "He  tells  them  thei/  might  have  used  greater 
aulliorily  as  apostles.^' *  We  trust  we  have  now  settled  the  two 
points — that  'limothy  icas  at  l-hilippi,  at  the  period  mentioned 
— ;tiid  that  Paul  do'c-^  call  him  and  Silas  "apostles."  Some 
other  objections  in  Mr.  Barnes'  first  review  had  been  already 

♦We  add,  as  amhoriticB  for  including  Timolliy  and  Silvanus  under  the  appcl- 
laliuii  "aposllrs,"  lli.>  following— Estius,  (I'o.  S^n.)  VVliitliy,  J.  Brown,  of  Had- 
diiwton.  and  A.  Clarke. 


188  REMARKS    ON    A    SECOND    REVIEW    OF 

answered  in  the  Protestant  Episcopalian  for  March  and  Novem- 
ber, 1S31.  On  liie  objection  that  Paul,  in  some  places,  calls 
Tiinolhy  only  his  "  broilier,"  we  may  add.  tiiat  Peter  calls 
P.nil  "onr  beloved  brother;^''  James  says  to  PanI,  "  Thou  seest, 
brother;"'  Paul  says,  '•  I  found  not  Titus,  my  brother;''''  Ana- 
nias says  to  Paul,  already  an  apostle,  ^-  Brutlicr  Saul,  receive  thy 
sight :"  this  is  evidence  enough  that  tiie  appellation  does  )iot 
imply,  as  given  to  Timothy,  that  he  was  not  an  apostle. 

The  chief  value  of  this  fact — that  'J'imolhy  is  called  an  "apos- 
tle" in  Scripture — is,  its  routing  finally  the  Non-episcopal  plea, 
that  Timothy  had  superior  power  at  Ephesus  merely  as  an 
"evangelist."  An  apostle  had  full  power,  as  such,  and  could 
have  nothing  added  to  it  from  having  also  the  latter  designa- 
tion. Philip  and  Timothy  are  the  only  individuals  to  whom 
that  designation  is  applied ;  and  there  is  no  evidence  that 
Philip  had  any  special  power  as  an  evangelist;  neither  ca/i 
there  be  evidence  to  that  effect  in  the  case  of  Timothy,  since  his 
apostleship  gave  him  all  the  power  a  minister  can  have.  Fare- 
■well,  then,  to  this  puny  argument!  Our  Rev.  opponent  had 
too  much  penetration  and  accuracy  of  judgment  to  make  any 
use  of  it  in  either  of  his  reviews. 

We  may  here  add,  in  passing,  that  the  fact  of  Timothy'? 
being  an  "apostle,"  shows  that  he  could  not  have  been  ordained 
as  such  "  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands"  of  a  Presbyteriar 
"  presbytery." 

So  again  :  Timothy  being  an  "aposlle,"  the  direction  of  Paul 
to  him — "The  things  which  th(ni  hast  heard  of  me  among 
many  witnesses,  the  same  commit  Ikou  to  faithful  men,  who 
shall  be  able  to  teach  others  also,"  is  a  "command"  to  transmit 
the  apostolic  oflice.  That  piissage  is  understood  by  all  the 
commentators  now  within  our  reach,  of  the  perpetuation  of  the 
ministerial  office — see  M.  Henry,  Doddridge,  Macknight,  Poole's 
Annotations,  Hammond — and  as  the  grade  of  that  (jtRce  held 
by  Timothy  from  Paul  was  the  apostolic,  thcit,  "  the  same" 
must  have  been  the  grade  he  was  to  "  commit,"  to  transmit  for 
the  purpose  of  succession. 

Yet,  further:  Timothy  being  an  "apostle,"  and  being  "com- 
manded "  to  transmit  the  apostleship  to  successors,  we  have 
clear  enough  evidence  of  the  ministerial  grade  of  the  "  angel  of 
the  Church  of  Ephesus"  some  thirty  years  afterward.  If  he 
was  not  Timothy  the  "apostle"  himself,  he  was  one  of  his 
apostolic  successors.  Such,  likewise,  of  course,  were  the  other 
six  "  angels." 

These  are  unavoidable  results  from  the  fact  that  Timothy  is 
denominated  an  "aposlle"  by  St.  Paul.  Some  of  them  are 
indeed  sufficiently  estt.blislied  by  the  general  argument,  that 
'i'imothy  indicidnaUy  held  a  station  in  the  Church  superior  to 
that  of  the  presbyter-bishops,  and  tliat  Paul  gives  directions 
W'hat  sucli  ministers  as  Timothy  are  to  do  "  till  the  appearing  of 
Jesus  Christ,"  i.  e.  till  the  consummation  of  things.    Add,  how- 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCHIPTURE.  189 

ever,  to  the  general  argument  this  specific  one,  and  the  evidetice 
for  Kpiscopacy,  and  the  permanence  of  Episcopacy,  is  such  as 
no  laltMit  or  zeal  can  ovetlliiow. 

Our  Rev.  oppontiU  refers,  for  tlie  support  of  part  of  Ills 
argii'iieiit,  to  liisliop  Slilliiiufleel — forgellul  of  the  rule,  that 
writers  wiio  iiave  contradicled  themselves  are  not  to  be  appealed 
io,  on  either  side.  Bishop  SuUinglleel  unsaid,  in  later  life,  what 
he  had  said  against  Episcopacy  ni  iiis  earlier  career. 

As  to  the  supposed  break  in  the  chain  of  the  English  Episco- 
pal succession,  in  the  cases  of  Aydan  and  Finan,  we  refer  the 
Rev.  reviewer  to  a  full  reply  in  the  Ciiurchnuui,  transferred  to 
[he  Protestant  Episcopalian  for  December,  1834.  This  objection 
may  do  for  those  who  are  objeciion-lnniters — it  is  not  worthy  of 
the  notice  of  our  able  and  candid  opponent.  He  cannot  sui)pose 
that  it  has  any  bearing  on  the  questions — Is  Episcopacy  set  forth 
in  .Scrijnure  ?  Is  il  there  set  lorth  as  a  permanent  institution  ? 
If  these  questions  be  answered  in  the  negative,  there  is  no 
need  of  seeking  a  break  in  the  Epi.scopal  succession.  If  in  the 
allirmative,  then,  indubitably,  we  must  presume  the  succession 
good,  except  where  clear  evidence  exists  to  the  contrary,  or  at 
least  a  doubt  of  overwhelming  magnitude,  'i'here  is,  however, 
no  suflicient  reason  to  think  liiat  liie  Episcopal  succession  failed 
in  the  case  of  tlicse  two  persons,  and  tiie  presumptive  argument 
is  so  entirely  agamst  it,  that  the  objection  is  unworthy  of  notice. 
Successive  ordinations  must,  from  the  luiture  of  (he  case,  depend 
mainly  for  their  evidence  on  notoriety — for  manuscript  records 
of  such  tilings  are  liable  in  mislakeo  and  perversions,  and  also  to 
extinction — "there  are  slight  iui.-.lakes  in  the  genealogy  of  our 
Lord,  and  that  of  the  Jewish  priesthood  was  not  uniformly 
perfect" — and  in  the  records  of  the  ordinations  of  the  multitudes 
of  bishops  that  have  existed,  were  they  all  preserved  by  suc- 
cessive copies,  there  would  unquestionably  be  errors  innume- 
rable, and  now  beyond  correction.  Nol(:»ricty,  however,  is  an 
all-siin'tcient  aiillieutication  of  a  matter  of  fact.  And  on  the 
claims  of  mHoriety,  we  may  safely  rest  all  Episco[)al  consecra- 
tions in  the  seventh  century.  Bede,  the  historian  referred 
to  in  raising  the  objection  before  us,  has  obviously  been  mis- 
understood. 

The  final  topic,  in. the  way  of  argument,  of  the  reviewer,  is 
this — one  scriptural  example  of  a  Presbyterian  ordination  is 
enough  to  disprove  the  claim,  "  that  none  but  prelates  ordained" 
— and  such  an  exan)|)le  is  given  in  the  text,  "Neglect  not  the  gift 
that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying 
on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery."  We  join  issue  with  him  on 
lliis  text,  and  will  go  again,  and  somewhat  more  largely,  into  the 
argument  concerning  it. 

We  slated  in  the  Tract,  that  it  was  allowed  on  all  hands  that 
the  Apostles  ordained.  We  showed  also,  that  'I'imothy  and 
Tuns  had  the  ordaining  power.  So  far,  we  believe,  there  is  no 
question:  this  point  is  dear.     We  argued  likewise,  that  it  is 


190  REMARKS    ON   A   SECOND   REVIEW   OP 

not  dear  tliat  presbyters  ordained  ;  on  the  contrary,  they  were 
omitted  in  the  direclions  for  perforniiiig  that  duty  ;  and  tiierefore 
the  Apiislles  and  Tiniotiiy  ami  Titus  ordained  in  virtue  of  a 
rigli.t  which  it  could  not  be  proved  that  pre^sbylers  possessed  — 
in  other  words,  tliey  ordained  in  virtue  of  their  beinir  a  arade  of 
ministers  superior  to  presbyters,  or  different  from  ihem,  if  the 
word  'superior'  be  disliked. 

How  did  we  show  that  tlie  text  quoted  is  not  a  clear  record  of 
a  Presbyterian  ordination?  We  did  it  by  presenting  several 
considerations,  whicli,  at  the  lowest  estimate,  mai<e  tiiis  con- 
struction of  the  passage  doubtful  ;  and  whicli,  fairly  weighed, 
cancel  the  whole  claim  thus  built  on  it.  Some  of  these  v.e  here 
repeat,  and  add  further  arguments  to  the  same  effect. 

1.  It  cannot  be  proved  that  the  passage  refers  to  ordination  of 
any  kind.  A  gift,  x^p^^i^"^  given  by  prophecy,  may  jusrly  be 
regarded  as  some  extraordinnry  spiritual  endowment;  and  it  is 
so  regarded  by  various  commentators.  Or,  the  "  prophecy"  l.ere 
mentioned,  and  the  laving  on  of  iiands,  may  be  held  analogous 
to  the  inspired  separation  of  Barnabas  and  Paul,  who  were 
apostles  already,  to  a  particular  sphere  of  apostolic  duty,  which 
was  done  by  "prophets;"  (Acts  xiii;)  and  thus  Timothy  had  his 
"charge"  at  Ephesus  "committed  unto  him  according  to  the 
prophecies  which  went  befc^re  on  him."     Neither  of  these  ex|)0- 

•  silions  is  strained;  they  boll;  are  natural.  The  latter  of  them, 
we  fidly  l)elieve,  would  be  assigned  by  a  coinmcnlator  whose 
mind  was  not  pie-occnpied  with  quefilions  concerning  ordination, 
and  who  would  make  the  s<)le  ndc  of  his  interpretation  the 
'•comparing  Scripture  with  Scripture."  It  is  dojtbtful  then, 
reasonably  doubtful,  Vv'helher  the  text,  refers  to  ordination  at  all. 
And  here  we  make  our  stand  — though  we  carry  onward  the 
argument,  for  the  sake  of  tiiose  who  do  not  agree  with  iis. 

2.  Conceding,  for  the  purpose  of  further  investigation,  that 
Timothy's  ordination  is  here  referred  to,  it  is  not  clear  that  the 
word  translated  "  [iresbvtery "  means  a  body  of  ordainers — it 
may  mean  '  presbytership,'  the  ministerial  office — with  the  laying 
on  of  hands  for  conferring  the  presbytershi[) — and,  under  that 
c(nist ruction,  the  passage  does  not  say  whose  hands  were  laid  on 
Timothy  for  this  purpose.  For  this  meaning  of  the  word  we 
adduced  the  anthoritv  of  Jerome.  Ambrose,  Calvin,  and  Grntius.* 
Are  not  such  aulhoriiics  suincient  to  render  doubtful  \he  allusion 
of  the  passage  to  ordmation  by  presbyters?  And  what  dfies 
Mr.  Barnes  oppose  to  this  argument  and  its  authority? — 1.  That 
it  makes  Timothy  an  elder,  and  so  not  an  apostle;  which  is  just 
as  conclusive  as  to  say  that  Peter  and  .lohn,  being  called  "elders," 
could  not  have  been  apostles  2.  That  the  word  in  question 
means  a  body  of  elders  in  two  other  places;  so  it  does,  and  yet  may 

*  Pdole  says,  in  liis  Synopsis — "  Ita  vocnni  lianc  acci|iiiinl  Hieron.  Amli.  Giaeci 
in  Cone.  Nicen.  can.  2.  Ancvr.  can.  18.  Euseb.  et  Soc."  Surely  tlie  word  is  nor, 
as  Mr.  B.  alleges,  "fixed  in  its  meaning,  in  the  usage  of  the  Church:"  even  if  it 
were,  does  church  usage  control  the  interpretation  of  Scripture? 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCKIPTLKE.  191 

mean  only  the  clerical  office  here.  3.  Tiial  Suicer,  quotirio  from 
Tlic'odoret,  Chrysostom,  Tiieophylact,  and  Ignalius,  gives  the 
word  ilie  sense  of  a  "coiiecre  of  presbyters:"  we  have  not  Suicer 
at  iiaiid,  but  are  very  sure  that  not  one  of  his  quotations  can  refer 
to  ordinations  by  mere  i)resbyters;  we  are  sure  also,  that  if  he 
quotes  Jerome  and  Ambrose  fulh^,  he  must  give  the  sense  of 
'•  presbytership"  to  the  Greek  word.  4.  Tliat  Urotius,  in  recog- 
nisiug  this  latter  sense  of  the  word,  speaks  of  the  presbyters 
layiuiT  on  hands  with  the  princeps  of  tiieir  body  ;  and  that  Calvin, 
in  his  commentar}',  interprets  tlie  word  of  "  tlie  college  of  pres- 
byters :"  but  surely  tiiese  replies  leave  the  whole  matter  in  even 
greater  doubt :  Grotins,  thougli  he  mentions  tlie  presbyters' 
laying  on  hands,  declines  adducing  tlie  text  before  us  as  a  proof 
of  tlieir  right  to  do  so,  because  its  meaning  is  uncertain  ;  and 
Calvin  gives  one  meaning  to  npcapvT^piov  in  his  Institutes,  (for 
wliicli,  says  Dr.  Miller,  he  deserves  nothing  but  ridicule  !)  and 
in  his  Commentary,  a  later  production,  he  prefers  the  other 
meaning — only  prefers  it — for  he  adds,  "Although,  all  tilings 
considered,  I  confess  a  different  sense  answers  not  badly,  that  it 
siiould  be  tiie  name  of  o^re" — now,  what  but  doubt,  increased 
[may  we  not  say,  irremediable]  doubt,  can  result  from  the  hesita- 
tion of  these  learned  men  concerning  the  meaning  of  the  word  ! 
Such  is  the  predicament  in  whicli  tlie  highest  Presbyterian 
authority,  to  say  nothing  of  the  other  authorities  mentioned, 
leaves  the  only  text  which  Mr.  Barnes  adduces  for  his  cause,  the 
"solitary  text,"  tiie  "  lonely  Scripture  proof!" 

3.  Granting,  yet  further,  that  the  word  siiould  be  "presbytery," 
and  liiat  it  means  a  body  of  "elders,''  it  still  is  not  clear  that 
presbyter-bisliops,  or  they  only,  were  meant.  Two  of  the 
Apostles  call  themselves  elders — and  thus  the  "presbytery" 
may  have  consisted  of  apostles  only  :  and  Paul  and  Silas,  both 
aj)ostIes,  were  at  Lystra,  when  Paul  took  Timothy  "  witli  liiin." 
Again:  Paul  speaks  of  the  gift  which  was  in  Timolliy  by  tiie 
laying  on  of  his  hands  ;  and  the  same  arguments  whicii  make  the 
other  passage  apply  to  ordination,  will  unavoidably  make  this 
als.i:  hence,  if  an  ordination  was  meant,  Paul  must  have  othciat- 
ed  at  it,  ^Y!loever  else  did;  and  thus  tiie  act  was  an  cposlalicdl 
one,  at"d  tlie  transaction  affords  no  proof  that  presbyters  alone 
can  crdain.  More  doubt  then,  as  we  proceed,  is  gathered  round 
the  Presbyterian  exposition  of  this  passage — and  this  doubt  is 
fairly  and  iioiieslly  adduced;  it  arises,  not  by  conjuration,  but 
naturally  and  inevitably. 

4.  If  it  be  said  that  the  "elders"  in  this  supposed  ordaining 
"  presbvtery"  are  to  be  regarded  as  of  the  sprcijtc  kind,  presby- 
ter-iiishops  or  pastors — that  this  meaning  of  the  word  has  the 
preference  by  the  laws  of  lansruafie, — we  reply,  besides  refer- 
ring to  our  Tract,  that  our  Presbyterian  friends  liave  cut  tiiem- 
selves  off  from  taking  advantage' of  tiiis  argument,  by  jiiiltiiig 
tivo  kinds  of  elders  into  their  "presbyteries,"  tiie  specific  kind, 
and  the  ruling-elder  kind;  and  so  we  may  unite  the  apostolic 


192  REMARKS   ON    A   SECOND    REVIEW    OP 

sort  and  the  presbyter  sort  in  such  a  body.  Their  Form  of 
Goveniinent  says,  "A  presbytery  consists  of  all  the  ministers, 
and  one  ruling  elder  from  each  congregation,  wiiiiin  a  certain 
district" — and  at  the  ordination  of  a  pastor,  "the  presbytery" 
is  to  be  "  convened,"  and  is  to  "  lay  on  iiaiids." 

5.  From  this  it  appears  that  the  lay  elders  are  to  join  in  the 
ini|iosiiion  of  hands.  Not  having  witnessed  a  Presbyterian  ordi- 
nation, we  know  not  what  is  the  practice;  but  such  is  tlie 
authenticated  direction^  and  if  it  be  not  fulfilled,  the  ordination 
is  not  by  the  presbytery  of  their  *own  defining.  Do  the  lay 
elders,  in  this  act,  unite  in  conferring  the  pastoral  commission  ? 
or  do  they  only  give  consent  to  what  is  done  by  the  oniaincrs 
proper  ?  The  former  they  cannot  do — not  being  ministers  them- 
selves, they  cannot  make  other  men  ministers.  The  latter  tlien 
is  the  function  assigned  to  tiiem — they  give  consent;  the  ordi- 
nation is  "by"  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  pastoral 
elders,  (strictly  of  tlie  "  presiding"  one,)  and  "with"  the  lay- 
ing on  of  the  hands  of  the  lay  elders.  Mere  is  a  distinction 
between  by  and  xoith,  quite  independent  of  the  "  learned  criti- 
cism" that  has  been  bestowed  on  the  Greek  words;  and  we 
may  avail  ourselves  of  it,  in  discussing  the  theory  of  Timothy's 
being  ordained  by  the  laying  on  of  Paul's  hands,  and  loitli  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery.  In  doing  so,  we 
take  the  authority  of  the  rules  of  the  Presbyterian  Ciiurch, 
whether  their  practice  conforms  to  them  or  not.  If  they  deny 
our  construction  of  their  rules,  they  make  two  kinds  of  presbyte- 
ries— and  then,  what  results  but  further  r/o«W  concerning  "  pres- 
bytery" in  the  passage  before  us? — they  define  a  presbytery, 
aud  then  depart  from  their  own  definition — which  of  the  two 
kinds  is  the  scriptural  one  ?  which  has  scriptural  authority  ? 

("Since  writing  the  last  paragraph,  we  have  ct)nsulted  Buck's 
Dictionary,  and  find  tliat  in  the  Church  of  Scotland,  the  pastoral 
are  distinguished  from  tlie  ruling  elders  in  two  particulars — 
they  ovi\y  lay  on  hands  in  ordaining  pastors — and  the  presiding 
officer  of  the  presbytery  is  chosen  from  among  them.  We 
have  made  inquiries  also  concerning  the  practice  in  Presbyte- 
rian ordinatioiis  in  this  country,  and  learn  that  the  ruling  elders 
do  rcot  impose  hands  with  the  pastors — though  the  opir.icni  is 
not  iuir^npporicd,  that  they  ought  to  do  so.  On  this  evitlcnce, 
combined  with  that  of  tiie  Presbyterian  standards,  we  ofler  the 
following  remarks:  1,  If  the  "presbytery"  of  the  standards  is 
the  same  as  that  supposed  to  be  mentioned  in  the  epistle  to- 
Timothy,  then  the  lay,  as  well  as  the  pastoral  elders,  ought  to 
lay  on  hands.  Yet  in  fact  they  do  not.  Of  cotu'se,  under  this 
constructioi),  Presbvterian  ordinations  are  not  scri[)tnral.  2.  If 
the  "presbytery"  of  the  standards  is  not  that  of  Paul's  epistle, 
then  the  Presbyierians  have  not  a  scriptural  church  govern- 
ment: for  no  other  Christian  presbytery  is  mentioned  in  the 
New  Testament.  And  further,  they  make,  imder  one  name, 
two  ecclesiastical  bodies ;  the  one  for  governing,  which  is  not 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BV   SCRIPTDRE.  19S 

found  in  Scripture,  but  only  in  their  standards  ;  the  other  fur 
ordaining,  said  by  them  to  be  in  Scripture;  while  yet  tliis  miy 
is  unfiaid  by  the  fact  tliat  not  this,  but  only  the  oilier  presl)yiery 
is  found  in  their  standards.  That  their  presbytery  (»u<;lii  to 
include  ruling  elders,  they  cannot  deny,  since  their  standards  so 
declare:  yet  that  the  scriptural  presbytery  included  tiieni  they 
cannot  affirm,  for  their  practice  presumes  it  did  not.  AViiai — 
with  Scripture  alleged  on  one  hand,  and  tiie  (Jencral  Assembly 
speaking  clearly  .on  the  other — what  is  the  "presbytery?^' 
Can  any  thorough  Presbj'terian  tell  us,  without  risk  from  one 
or  the  other  of  tiie  horns  of  this  dilemma  ?  We  think  not — all  is 
doubt  on  tiiat  subject.  3.  If  the  nature  of  tilings  be  appealed  to, 
and  it  be  said  tiiat  ruling  elders  cannot  belong  to  an  ordaining 
presbytery,  because  they  cannot  confer  an  office  which  tliem- 
selvcs  do  not  possess,  then  we  ask,  Wiiy  are  they  put  into  the 
presbytery  at  all  ?  AVhy  is  there  any  other  than  an  ordaining 
presbytery  1  Why  has  the  General  Assembly  made  no  sucii 
ordaining  presbytery  as  is  contended  for?  Scripture  having 
sanctioned,  as  interpreted  by  Presbyterians,  a  presbytery  of 
pastors  only,  and  only  for  "laying  on  of  hands,"'  where  is  the 
scriptural  authority  for  a  governing  presbytery,  and  for  its 
comprising  ruling  elders  ?  4.  We  have  further  to  saj^,  that  if,  on 
Presbyterian  principles,  the  ruling  elders  ought  to  laj' on  hands 
with  the  pastors, — if  this  opinion  has  a  claim  to  be  included  in 
the  argument  before  us,  it  pleads,  of  course,  the  Scripture  men- 
tioned for  its  support ;  and  then,  on  that  theory,  the  actual 
ordhiations  of  Presbyterians  are  unscriptural,  as  well  as  con- 
trary to  their  own  Form  of  Government — the  latter  defect 
making  them  uncanonical,  the  General  Assembly  being  the 
jndge,  and  the  former  making  them  void. 

The  General  Assembly  declares  that  ordination  is  to  be 
"  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery,  according 
to  the  apostolic  example;"  it  declares  the  "presbytery,"  the 
only  one  it  defines,  to  include  ruling  elders  ;  these,  therefore, 
to  conform  to  "  the  apostolic  example,"  ought  to  lay  on  hands, 
but  they  do  not ;  therefore,  by  its  own  showing,  the  ordina- 
tions in  the  communion  of  the  General  Assembly,  are  not 
"  according  to  the  apostolic  example."] 

6.  To  estimate  the  magnitude,  of  the  doubtfulness  of  the 
Presbyterian  construction  of  the  text  before  us,  referring,  as 
they  saj',  to  the  ordmalion  of  Timothy,  we  must  look  to  expo- 
sitors of  good  character,  and  see  how  they  interpret  both  that 
passage,  and  whatever  of  Scripture  may  bear  on  the  point  of 
ills  ordination.  Some,  of  course,  give  the  usual  Presbyterian 
expositions.  But  while  many  others,  of  high  authority,  present 
different  views  of  the  matter,  we  must  hold  the  topic  to  be 
overstiadowed  with  too  much  doubt  to  be  availing  in  behalf  ol 
the  Non-episcopal  scheme. 

Jerome  and  Ambrose,  Eusebius  and  Socrates,  Nice  and  An« 
cyra — these,  says  Poole,  declare  that  office  was  meant  in  the 
17 


194  REMARKS    ON  "A    SECOND    RHVIEW   OP 

words,  "laying  on  of  the  hands  tov  irpeirjSurtpiou."  So  likewise  do 
Lyra  and  others.     (See  Lei^h.) 

Grotius  says,  lie  does  not  "dare"  to  adduce  those  words  for 
the  imposition,  in  ordination,  of  tlie  hands  of  presbyters. 

Calvin  ''halls,"  at  the  least,  "between  the  two  opinions" — 
that  the  words  refer  to  presbyters  —  and  that  they  refer  to 
presbytership.  * 

T.  Scott,  also,  though  he  thinks  a  body  of  presbyters  is 
meant,  adds,  "  Or  the  ministerial  oj/ice  itself  may  be  intended." 

Poole's  Annotations  —  argues  —  Neglect  neither  the  abilities 
nor  tiie  office  —  "remember  that  they  were  given  thee  by  the 
revelation  of  the  Divine  will,  or  by  the  e.vlraordinanj  influence 
of  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  Die  laying  on  of  hands  of  the  presby- 
tery was  a  declaration  of  it."  In  other  words,  the  whole 
transaction  was  a  "supernatural"  one;  and  tlie  act  of  the 
presbyter}'  "declaring"  it,  was  of  course  supernatural  or  in- 
spired. Is  such  a  proceeding  an  ordination  ?  is  it,  by  any  con- 
struction, a  basis  for  an  ordination  of  the  ordinary  kind  ? 

Doddridge  (on  Acts  xvi.  3J  says,  that  after  circumcising 
Timothy,  at  Lystra,  ^^  Paid  laid  his  hands  upon  him,  and  set 
him  apart  to  the  ministerial  office,  conferring  upon  him  extraor- 
dinary gifts,  (2  Tim.  i.  6,)  whicli  were  attended  with  prophe- 
cies of  his  eminent  future  usefulness.  (I  Tim.  i.  18;  iv.  14.") 
Whether  Doddridge  speaks  in  another  tone,  in  his  remarks  on 

1  Tim.  iv.  14.  and  2  Tim.  i.  6,  we  do  not  inquire.  We  use  his 
authority  for  doiihls  only  in  tbe  case — if  it  amounts  to  contra- 
diction, so  much  more  is  the  Presbyterian  plea  doubtful. 

Macknight  says,  on  the  text  in  dispute — "The  word  x"P"'i'<* 
commonly  denotes  the  spiritual  gifts  conferred  on  believers  in 
the  first  age,  whetlier  by  an  immediate  illapse  of  the  Holy  ('Host, 
or  by  the  imposition  of  the  ^4pos^/es'  hands:"  by  -'spiritual  gifts" 
he  means  miraculous  powers;  and  he  ascribes  tlie  endowment 
to  the  hands  of  "apostles."     He  adds,  "Since  it  appears  from 

2  Tim.  i.  6,  that  the  Apostle  by  the  imposition  of  his  own  hands 
conferred  on  Timothy  the  spiritual  gift  here  mentioned,  we  must 
suppose  that  the  eldership  at  Lystra  laid  their  hands  on  liiin 
onhj  to  show  their  concurrence  with  the  Apostle  in  setting 
Timothy  apart  to  the  ministry  by  prayer;  in  the  same  manner 
as  the  prophets  at  Antioch,  by  the  command  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
separated  Paul  and  Barnabas  by  prayer  to  the  work  to  which 
they  were  appointed."  Dr.  Macknight,  it  seems,  does  not  speak 
so  slightingly  of  "concurrence"  as  the  reviewer  does— "  for  con- 
currence, for  form,  for  nothing  !"  A  very  short  argument — but 
a  very  brittle  one  ! 

Adam  Clarke,  who  thinks  that  both  gifts  and  office  are  referred 
to  in  the  passage  before  us,  says  there  were  two  impositions  of 
hands  on  Timothy,  though  on  the  same  occasion  ;  that  by  Paul, 
and  that  by  the  "presbytery."  On  this  construction,  a  presby- 
tery ought  not  to  lay  on  hands,  unless  there  be  an  apostle  present 
to  do  the  same  act,  either  before  or  after  theirs  is  performed. 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY   SCHIPTCRE.  195 

Some  Presbyterians,  as  Dr.  Campbell  and  Dr.  Wilson,  reject 
the  class  of  nilinii-elders,  and  deem  a  "  presbylery"  to  be 
formed  wilhont  ihem.  Others,  as  Calvin  and  Dr.  Miller,  are 
strenuous  advocates  for  tliat  office,  and  make  them  an  integral 
part  of  the  "  presbvtery  ;"  as  does  also  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  lliis  country.  Now,  who  can  say,  in  such  a  disagreement  of 
great  divmcs — who  can  say,  with  reasonable  certainty,  or  with 
sufficient  probahilit)^,  how,  on  Non-episcopal  principles,  the 
•' j)resl)ylery  "  of  the  text  before  us  must  liave  been  constituted  ? 

Again  :  Some  writers,  our  Rev.  opponent  for  e\"am|)le,  say 
tlvat  Paul  belonged  to  this  "  presbytery,"  or  took  part  with  them 
in  the  ordination.  Oliiers,  as  .Matthew  Henry,  say  that  the 
''  presbytery"  alone  ordained,  and  that  Paul  did  not  belong  to  it, 
but  gave  only  an  extraordinary  spiritual  gift  by  the  imposition  of 
his  liands.  What  are  we  to  make  of  a  "presbytery"  of  which 
such  contradictory  notions  are  entertained? 

Other  Presbyterian  writers,  as  the  late  Dr.  "Wilson,  are  of 
opinion  that  in  the  very  outset  of  tlie  Church,  there  were  no 
ordained  ministers,  but  only  apostles,  evangelists,  prophets,  &c., 
endowed  with  extraordinary  gifts.  In  conformity  with  this 
theory,  Dr.  Wilson  doubts  whether  the  verse  before  us  alludes 
to  ordination,  (p.  273.) 

Add  to  these  Presbyterian  or  Non-episcopal  sources  of  doubt 
concerning  the  meaning  of  this  word  and  the  passage  containing 
it — all  our  modern  quotations  but  one  are  from  that  side  of  the 
question — add  to  them  tiie  many  Episcopal  writers  who  regard 
the  "  presbytery"  as  having  consisted  of  apostles,  of  bisiiops 
proper,  or  of  elders  with  one  or  more  apostles — or,  who  hold 
that  Paul  alone  ordained,  while  the  elders  merely  gave  consent 
— or,  who  do  not  allow  that  this  laying  on  of  hands  was  for 
ordination — add  Ignatius,  who  says,  (Phil.  5,)  "fleeing  to  the 
Apostles  as  to  the  presbytery  of  the  Church,"  showing  tliat  the 
word  in  dispute  may  be  applied  to  a  body  of  apostles  only — add 
Chrysostom,  who  says,  on  the  passage,  "by  eldership  (pres- 
bytery) he  means  not  presbyters,  but  bishops,  for  presbyters  did 
not  ordain  bishops" — add  Theodoret,  who  says  that  the  minis- 
ters who  with  Paul  consecrated  Timothy  were  "  tiiose  who  were 
vouchsafed  the  favor  to  be  apostles,"  or  the  gift  of  the  apostleship 
— add,  if  we  may  go  to  later  fathers,  fficumenins  and  Theophy- 
]act,  who  say,  "presbytery,  that  is  bishops"* — add  all  these 
further  sources  of  doubt,  and  wliat  but  doubt  can  be  made  of  the 
"solitary  trtct !"  (See  further  the  note  below.t) 

♦  The  three  last  quotations  are  trilccn  from  Hajninond  on  Acts  xi.  30. 

1  We  add,  in  full,  the  rcinarUs  on  Flpeff/Jurfpiov  from  the  Crilica  Sacra  of  Sir 
Edward  Leigh  :  He  was,  says  Lemprii  re,  a  inc'inber  of  the  Long  Parliament,  and 
of  llie  Assembly  of  Divines,  and  also  a  parliamenlnry  generid  :"  he  dediciites  his 
work  to  the  Westminster  Assembly  of  DivHnes.  He  Unis  writes  on  the  word, — 
"  Tloc&0xiT(^wv,  Senioruiti  oida,  PienhylKrium.  It  si;inilielh  a  company  of  elders. 
Pre.fbijteriiim  in  Latin  is  nr<ed  hv  Gypi  iiin.  H'l.  3.  ciiixt  1 1.  and  /.  'i.  ejiisf.  8  and  10, 
for  a  consb-V)ry  of  .Id.MS.  ITim.'iv.  1-1.  [Vide  W-a-k]  It  dolli  sijjnify  (sjiith 
one)  not  only  a  company  of  presbyters,  hiil  als.ilhi'  nl/icii  u[\i\  fKiudoit  of  a  presliyler. 


196  REMARKS   ON    A   SECOND   REVIEW   OP 

7.  Let  the  only  scriptural  illustrations  of  the  word  "presby- 
tery'' be  taken  inio  consideration.  It  occurs  three  times  in  the 
New  Testament ;  and  in  botli  the  cases  besides  the  one  before  us, 
it  is  applied  to  ilie  Jewish  elders  or  rulers — "  The  presbytery  of 
the  people,  and  ihe  chief  priests,  and  the  scribes  came  together," 
(Luke  xxii.  66  ;)  "  The  iiigli  priest  dotli  hear  me  witness,  and  all 
the  presl)ylery."  (Acts  xxii.  5.)  The  Jewish  presbytery  was 
"a  body  distinguished  from  the  priests,"  says  Dr.  Miller:  laymen 
belonged  to  it — perliaps  it  was  made  up  of  laymen.  What  then 
was  the  Christian  presbytery  menlioned  by  Paul  ?  was  it  clerical, 
or  lay,  or  a  mixture?  Scripture  decides  not.  If  the  Jewish 
presl)ytery  was  "distinguished  from  the  prieslliood,"  is  it  not  a 
fair  inference,  that  the  Ciiristian  presbytery  was  'distinguished 
from  the  ministry?'  and  then,  if  the  passage  be  relied  on  for  the 
authority  to  ordain,  the  Independents  triumph  over  the  Presby- 
terians. If  the  word  "  preshyter,"  as  occurring  in  Scripture, 
be  brought  to  the  aid  of  tlie  word  "  presbytery."  then  a  seat  in 
tliat  body  is  given  to  apostles,  to  presbyter-bishops,  to  deacons 
probably,  and  some  say  to  ruling  elders;  while  yet  Scripture 
does  not  declare  whether  only  one  or  more,  or  all  these  kinds  of 
presbyters,  were  necessary  to  constitute  the  body — it  leaves  the 


Hieronymijs,  Ambrosius,  Piimasius,  Haimo,  Lyranus  diciint,  Presbyteritim  hie  est 
dignitas  ve\  officium  Preshyiem:  qiiibus  el  Calviiius  adstipulutur.  Chiysostoinus, 
ct  Tiieodoretus,  et  qui  liorum  vestigiis  institerunt,  fficiunenius  ac  Tlieophylactus, 
per  Piesbyterium  non  nisi  episcnpos  [none  but  bishops]  intelligunt.  Itaquc  si  deinus 
(inquit  Scultetus  in  locum)  npeafivTipiov  hie  coetuai  senioium  significaie,  ernnt 
seuiores  illi,  Apostoti,  EvangclistcB,  ProplielcB,  et  Ixxii.  discipuH,  quos  Scripturae 
docentde  Presbyteriis  fuisse  in  prima  ecclesia  ;  non  laid  seniores,  qnorum  scriptura 
nnisqnam  meminit,  et  qui  hoc  ipso  loco  a  presbyterio,  velut  ex  professo,  excludunlur. 
Presbvteiinni  enun  hoc  munus  ministiis  ordinandis  imposuit.  Nnlli  antem  laicoinm 
senioruin  nianus  ministiis  imposneiMiul :  Hoc  postremo  habendnm;  solos  pastores 
tnanus  imposuisse  ministns.  Calvinus,  H.  4.  Jnstit.  ca.  3.  So  Jerome  and  Anselm 
expound  t'resbyterium  by  Presbyteratus,  or  Episcopatus,  that  is,  the  office  of  a 
piiest  or  bishop  :  and  Lyia,Piesbyteiium  est  dignitas  vel  officium  presbyteri.  Yea, 
their  own  Rlieinists  confess  so  much,  in  that  they  translate  the  word  presbyteriiim 
in  this  place,  priesthood,  which  doth  not  signify  a  company  of  priests,  but  the  office 
and  order  of  a  priest.  Yet  others  seem  to  be  of  a  contrary  opinion." — Here,  surely, 
is  an  unexceptionable  witness  ;  he  was  "  learned,"  he  was  "  a  violent  Presbyterian," 
and  both  politically  and  ecclesiastically  connected  with  the  interests  of  that  denomi- 
nation. What  says  he  of  the  doubtful  word'!  it  means  'seniorum  ordo,'  the  degree 
or  order  of  elders,  as  well  as  a  '  compiny  '  of  them  ;  and  he  gives  as  full  authority, 
at  li'ast,  for  the  former  sense,  as  for  the  latter.  It  means  also  the  office  of  a  bishop, 
and  a  body  of  bishops  ;  good  authorities  being  adduced  for  these  significations  also. 
What,  now,  must  we  think  of  Dr.  Miller,  when  he  says  that  Calvin,  for  interpreting 
the  word  of  office,  "deserves  nothing  but  ridicule  1 "  (p.  58.  1st  edit.)  What  shall 
we  think  of  Mr.  Barnes,  when  he  says,  "  The  word  is  fixed  in  its  meaning,  in 
tlie  usage  of  the  Church'?"  If  ever  there  was  a  word  preeminently  not  fixed  in  its 
meaning,  irptajivTcpiov  is  such  a  word.  Nay,  we  may  affirm  that  its  meaning 
cannot  now  be  fixed — for  the  authority  for  each  of  the  several  meanings  presented 
in  this  extract,  is  too  good  to  be  set  aside,  and  neitlier  of  them  can  be  preferred, 
without  the  shedding  of  new  light  on  the  subject.  The  Presbyterian  constniction 
h:is  only  the  mer<>st  chance  of  being  the  true  one.  For  ourselves,  we  prefer  the 
analogy  of  the  '■  tran.saction  "  in  this  passage  with  th.it  in  Acts  xiii. :  this  scriptural 
analogy  appears  to  us  stronger  than  all  the  arguments  adduced  for  the  other  inter- 
pretations. 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  197 

text,  the  "lonely"  text,  to  tlie  cnnfllctiiiE;  claims  of  Episcopa- 
lians, Presbyterians,  and  tiie  advocates  of  lay  ordination. 

Snch,  upon  all  these  considerations,  is  the  hopeless  predica- 
ment of  tlie  passage  before  lis. 

Yet  on  such  a  text  Mr.  Barnes  rests  his  argument  for  the 
scriptural  authority  of  Presbyterian  ordination;  on  this  text 
alone,  for  he  does  not  support  it,  on  the  point  of  ordination,  by 
any  otiier  scriptures.  Nay,  we  see  not  that  lie  has  any  scrip- 
tures to  support  it  with  ;  for,  in  his  first  Review,  he  acknowledges 
that  ''the  transaction  at  Antioch  was  not  a  Presbyterian  ordina- 
tion ;"  and  if  he  go  to  tlie  cases  of  Matthias,  the  seven  deacons, 
and  tlie  '•  elders  in  every  church,"  he  will  find  them  all  the  work 
of  apostles,  not  of  elders.  In  this  one  passage  then,  "the  laying 
on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery,"  we  have  not  merely  the 
only  passage  he  offers,  but  the  only  one  he  can  offer.  M  ill  he 
tell  us  tiien  what  vpcaiSvTipiov  in  this  passage  means'?  will  he  tell 
us,  on  such  principles  and  on  such  authority  as  will  scatter 
reasonable  doubt,  and  compel  the  acquiescence  of  all  candid  and 
honest  minds  .^  No,  he  cannot.  The  grounds  of  uncertainty,  as 
to  its  meaning,  are  too  numerous,  too  rife  even  in  his  own 
denomination,  to  admit  of  a  concentration  of  opinion  on  the 
Presbyterian  sense,  or  indeed  on  any  one  sense,  of  that  Greek 
word.  We  are  right  therefore,  in  deeming  it  to  have  referred 
to  an  inspired  transaction,  which  affords  no  rule  of  conduct  to 
uninspired  agents. 

Compare  with  these  "  shadows,  clouds,  and  darkness,"  the 
Episcopal  argument.  That  the  Apostles  ordained,  all  agree. 
Tiiat  'I'imothy  and  Titus  had  the  power  to  ordain,  all  agree. 
Tiiat  the  two'latter  had  this  power  individually  is  clear,  if  proof 
to  the  contrary  be  not  shown,  for  the  epistles  are  directed  to 
them  individually.  What  is  the  proof  to  the  contrary?  Nothing 
positive  any  where  —  nothing  by  inference  in  the  epistle  to 
Titus— and  in  those  to  Timothy,  nothing  but  the  very  passage 
we  have  had  before  us,  the  meaning  of  which  even  Presbyterians 
cannot  decide,  and  which  of  course  affords  no  availing  inference 
whatever.  Timothy  and  Titus  then  had  the  ordaining  power 
individually.  Timothy  was  to  have  it  "  till  the  appearing  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  the  end  of  the  world  ;  that  is,  such  minis- 
ters as  Timothy  were  to  be  perpetuated  while  the  earthly  Church 
should  endure — what  he  had  received  of  Paul  was  to  be  "com- 
mitted to  faithful  men"  successively.  Is  there  any  flaw  in  this 
cliain  of  proofs  ?  do  any  reasonable  doubts  obscure  this  argument 
from  Scripture?  No  :  we  aver  it  to  be  as  clear  as  any  matter  of 
doctrine  or  discipline  drawn  from  that  holy  volume.  This  is 
enough  for  an  inductive  proof  of  Episcopial  ordination. 

Add  to  it  the  total  want  of  proof  of  Presbyterian  ordination. 
Wtiere  shall  any  proof  of  it  be  found?  In  the  "transaction  at 
Antioch  ?"  Mr.  Ilarnes  gives  it  up;  the  late  Dr.  Wilson  gave  it 
up  ;  Dr.  Miller,  if  we  understand  his  late  Tract,  (p.  12,  51,)  gives 
it  up  ;  the  Review  of  our  Tract  in  the  Biblical  Repertory  is 
17* 


198  REMARKS   ON    A   SECOND    REVIEW    OF 

silent  concerning  llie  paragraphs  on  that  "transaction"  which 
appeared  to  Mr.  Barnes  so  '-conclusive."  Will  proof  be  sought 
in  the  passage  "  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery?"  it 
cannot  be  done,  till  it  be  determined  what  the  passage  means. 
Will  it  be  looked  for  in  the  fact  tliat  a  "plurality"  (we  take  this 
word  from  Dr.  Miller)  ordained?  the  answer  is,  that  in  every 
recorded  case  of  that  sort,  the  ordainers  were  apostles,  not  mere 
presbyters.*  This  is  all  the  scriptural  proof,  we  believe,  that 
Non-episcopalians  cUdm  for  tiieir  ordinations  :  and  what  does  it 
amount  to?  precisely  notiiing — their  proof  is  no  proof. 

The  result  is,  that  Episcopal  ordination  has  the  cleai'  aijthority 
of  Scripture,  and  that  Presbyterian  ordination  has  no  scriptural 
authority  whatever. 

Because  our  Rev.  reviewer  finds  no  mention  of  persons  in  the 
apostolical  or  Episcopal  grade  of  the  ministry,  in  the  epistles  to 
the  Philippians  and  the  Tliessalonians,  he  concludes  that  those 
churches,  or  "groups"  of  cliurches,  were  organized  without 
them,  under  presbyter-bishops  only.  He  might  as  well  argue, 
that,  because  no  ministers  of  any  kind  (except  false  teachers) 
are  mentioned  in  the  first  epistle  of  John,  the  Christians  for 
whom  it  was  intended  had  none.  Besides,  there  are  those 
who  think  the  Philippians  had  an  apostle,  Epapiiroditus — and 
who  include  such  an  officer  among  those  in  the  Church  at 
Thessalonica  who  were  "over  them  in  the  Lord."  But  we  may 
grant  the  reviewer  all  he  asks,  and  he  will  yet  gain  nothing.  It 
is  not  inconsistent  with  the  Episcopal  scheme  that  new  churches, 
or  districts  of  churches,  be  for  awiiile  without  bishops;  all  our 
churches  in  this  cmmtry  were  without  them  till  after  the  Revolu- 
tion, their  connexion  with  the  bishop  of  London  being  little 
more  than  nominal,  and  without  ecclesiastical  authorization  ; 
and  in  several  of  our  new  Slates  and  Territories  now,  there  are 
churches  witliout  bishops,  not  being  numerous  enough,  as  yet, 
to  elect  canonically  such  ofiicers.  Such  districts  have  only,  like 
the  "group"  of  churches  in  or  near  Philippi,  accordinjj  to  the 
reviewer,  presbyter-bishops  and  deacons.  They  will  obtain 
each  an  apostle-bishop  in  due  season,  however,  as  Philippi 
unquestionably  did,  if  without  one  at  the  time  the  epistle  was 
written. 

And  as  to  the  alleged  incongruity  of  elders,  the  "  presbytery," 
"designating  the  bishop  of  Ephesus  to  his  field  of  labor,"  what 
force  is  there  in  the  objection?  Do  not  Presbyterian  laity  desig- 
nate, in  the  first  instance,  to  his  field  of  labor,  a  pastor  elect,  or 
a  pastor  ordained  coming  from  some  other  parish  or  situation  ? 
Do  not  our  "elders  and  brethren,"  in  convention,  do  the  same 
for  a  bishop  elect?  Nay,  our  "elders  and  brethren"  in  Illiimis 
have  "  appointed,"  have  "  designated  to  his  field  of  labor,"  a 


*  If  these  pniis  of  .Scripture  are  to  he  employed  asrainst  us,  it  should  be  to  the 
point  lliut  a  "  [ilurality  "  of  bishops  ou^ht  to  act  in  all  ordinations.  Our  reply  would 
tlien  be,  tliat  Timothy  and  Titus,  individuallij,  had  tiie  ordy'^^inf-  power 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTDRE.  199 

bisliop  consecrated— Bishop  Chase.  And  in  England,  where 
translations  are  allowed,  the  "brethren  and  elders,"  the  king 
and  llie  dean  and  chapter,  are  coMtiniially  tiuis  ''designating" 
consecrated  bishops  to  fields  in  which  they  did  not  labur  before. 
We  have  now  answered  all  that  we  deem  material  in  the 
argument  of  onr  estimable  op|)onent.  And  we  will  not  deem 
him  less  estimable  for  an  inadvertence  into  which  he  has  fallen 
at  the  close  of  liis  work.  Wlien  we  quoted  an  eiicomium  on 
onr  Church  from  his  first  review,  we  omitted  his  kind  hope 
that  she  would  be  *' tiie  warm  friend  of  revivals,  and  would  con- 
secrate her  wealth  and  power  to  the  work  of  a  perpetual  aggres- 
sion (Ml  the  territories  of  sin  and  death."  'J'he  reviewer  inti- 
mates that  this  omission  of  ours  "evinced  a  degree  of  ccddnesa 
toward  the  great  work  of  converting  liie  world,"  and  that  we  were 
"alarmed  at  the  word  revival.s."  Now.  we  submit  to  the  belter 
judgment  of  our  Rev.  friend,  whether  he  has  not  transcended 
his  fair  riglits — whether  our  onii.ssioii  only  of  certain  topics  is 
justly  construed  into  an  aversion  to  them — whether  a  conlro- 
vertist  has  the  privilege  of  calling  out  his  opponent  on  subjects 
foreitrn  to  the  debate,  and  of  which  he  says  nothing — in  short, 
whether  this  is  not  an  "extraneous  consideration,"  and  one 
peculiarly  improper,  as  having  an  ad  captandum  appearance, 
in  a  discussion  on  the  scriptural  arginnenls  concerning  Episco- 
pacy ?  Our  opinions  on  tlie  subject  of  "  converting  the  world" 
liave  been  published,  and  pretty  widely  circulated.  And  when 
the  w<ird  "  revivals "  shall  be  authoritatively  defined,  we  will 
say  whether  we  are  friendly  to  them  or  not.  At  present,  the 
term  includes  proceedings  of  the  i^nost  unruly  and  fanatical 
sort,  as  well  as  the  periods  of  a  gentler  movement  in  piety, 
which  never,  we  believe,  had  this  name  till  of  late  years.  And 
nnlil  the  former  are  wholly  discarded  from  the  current  defini- 
tif)n,  we  cannot  sanction  tiie  woi-d  "revivals."  We  are  sure 
our  Rev.  friend  w  ill  see  tliat  he  has  obliged  us  to  make  a  gra- 
tuitous explanatif)!!. 

But  we  consign  this  mistake  to  oblivion,  and  assure  him  of 
onr  high  estimate  of  his  piety,  talents,  and  honorable  principles. 
Tliat  his  reviews  have  not  been  more  successful,  is  owing  to 
the  infelicity  of  the  cause  lln^y  would  support — infelicity,  we 
say,  for  we  believe  that  in  the  controversies  on  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  ministry.  Episcopalians  have  invariably  been  the 
gainers. 

H.  U.  O. 

P.  S. — We  find  that  the  Biblical  Repertory  joins  Mr.  Barnes 
in  the  opinion  that  Timothy  was  not  at  Philippi  at  the  time  of 
the  persecution.  Beyond  these  two  writers,  we  know  of  none 
who  even  intimate  such  a  view  of  the  case. 

II.  U.  O. 


From  Uie  Biblical   Repertory. 

REVIEW. 


Episcopacy  Testkd  by  Scripture.  By  the  Right  Rev.  Henry  U.Onder- 
donk,  D.  D.,  Assistant  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  JCpi-copal  Church  in 
the  Commoniceatlk  of  Pennsylvania.     12nio.  pp.  4G.      Iy31. 

We  think  some  apology  to  our  readers  will  be  considered  as 
proper,  not  for  being  so  tardy  in  our  notice  of  this  pamplilet, 
but  for  noticing  it  at  all.  It  is  not  customary,  we  suppose,  to 
review  "Tracts;"  not  merely  because  of  tlieir  number,  and  their 
diminutive  and  fugitive  character;  but  also  because,  when  tiiey 
are  decisively  sectarian  in  their  nature,  they  are  regarded  as 
meant  for  circulation  only  among  tiie  members  of  the  particular 
sect  for  whose  benefit  they  are  intended.  The  history  of  this 
Tract,  however,  is  somewhat  peculiar.  It  was  first  published  as 
an  article  in  a  periodical  entitled,  tlie  "  Protestant  Episcopalian," 
without  a  name.  Soon  a!"terward  a  large  number  of  extra 
copies  were  stricken  off  from  the  press  of  that  work,  and  exten- 
sively circulated;  but  still  without  a  name.  In  this  form,  copy 
after  copy  was  sent  to  us  by  mail,  wliich  convinced  us  that 
something  more  was  intended  than  to  inform  and  satisfy  Epis- 
copalians. In  a  short  time  it  came  forth  from  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Press  in  New-York,  as  a  formal  tract,  with  the  name 
of  the  writer;  and  was  soon  followed  by  intimations  from 
various  quarters,  that  it  was  deemed  conclusively  to  establish 
the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy;  nay,  that  it  was  unanswerable. 
The  whole  Presbyterian  Church,  in  no  very  indirect  form,  was 
challenged  to  reply.  At  length  something  like  a  tone  of  exult- 
ing sarcasm  was  publicly  indulged.  An  answer  was  again  and 
again  called  for,  accompanied  with  more  than  insinuations  that 
the  silence  of  Presbyterians  in  regard  to  this  Tract,  must  be 
interpreted  as  a  virtual  acknowledgment  that  they  felt  them- 
selves refuted  and  overcome. 

On  the  undignified  and  offensive  aspect  of  this  conduct,  we 
do  not  think  proper  to  multiply  remarks.  Snch  puerile  exulta- 
tion is  the  language  of  weakness,  not  of  strength.  It  is  very 
evident  tliat  those  who  indulged  it  were  acquainted  with  only 
one  side  of  the  controversy.  We  are  far,  however,  from  ascrib- 
ing this  conduct  to  Bishop  Onderdonk  himself.  We  have  no 
doubt  he  would  disdain  it. 

The  simple  truth  is,  that  we  never  gave  this  Tract  even  a 
cursory  perusal,  until  within  the  last  twenty-four  hours.  Al- 
though copy  after  copy  was  poured  upon  us  by  the  mail,  in  all 
the  stages  of  its  publication ;  yet,  after  glancing  at  a  page  here 

(  200  )  - 


REVIEW — EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE.  201 

and  there,  to  the  amount  of  a  fourth,  or,  at  most,  a  third  part  of 
its  contents,  and  findinjj  not  a  thonglit  or  an  ilhistration  with 
which  we  had  not  been  made  familiar  by  other  writers,  we 
closed  the  pamphlet  inider  the  deliberate  impression  that  it  did 
not  call  for  any  ]Mibiic  notice.  It  never  occnrred  to  us  as  possible 
tliat  any  icell-iiifoi'vied  Presbyterian  or  Eprscupaliaii  could  con- 
sider this  manual  as  placin?  the  claims  of  prelacy  on  any  other 
or  firmer  gr'^imd  liian  tiuit  on  which  it  was  regarded  as  resting 
before.  And,  as  we  had  repeatedly  said  in  preceding  numbers 
of  our  work,  what  we  tliought  sufficient  to  discredit  these  claims, 
with  all  in)partial  readers,  we  felt  no  disposition  to  renew  a 
controversy  on  which  we  thought  enough  had  been  written  ; 
especially  when  so  many  other  sid^jects  more  nearly  connected 
with  the  best  interests  of  society,  and  tlie  salvation  of  the  soul, 
were  nrgenily  pressed  upon  our  attention,  and  more  than  sufli- 
cient  to  fill  our  pages. 

These,  most  candidly,  are  our  reasons  for  not  having  before 
taken  any  public  notice  of  this  manual.  And  our  general  esti- 
mate of  its  character  would  dispose  us  still  to  be  silent.  But  as 
the  voice  of  exidtation  over  its  supposed  unanswerable  charac- 
ter seems  to  be,  in  the  Episco|)al  camp,  waxing  louder  and 
louder;  and  as  it  is  possible  that  some  of  our  less-informed 
friends  may  misapprehend  the  reason  of  bur  silence,  we  have 
resolved  to  offer  a  few  cursory  remarks  on  the  boasted  produc- 
tion before  us. 

And  in  the  outset,  we  think  proper  to  say,  that,  although  tiie 
style  of  this  'I'ract  is,  in  general,  circuitous,  heavy  and  feeble  ; — 
and  although  a  single  thought  is  not  recognised  in  the  whole, 
whicii  has  not  been,  to  say  tlie  least,  quite  as  clearly  and  forci- 
bly presented  by  preceding  writers;  yet  it  possesses  so  ne 
characteristics  which  are  worthy  of  high  commendation.  Tiie 
author  has  avoided  all  indecorum  and  severity  of  remark.  lie 
writes  like  a  scholar  and  a  gentleman.  He  has  resorted  to  no 
nnhccoming  langnasre,  or  disingenuous  arts.  Every  thing  be- 
speaks a  writer  at  home  in  his  subject;  qualified  to  arrange  with 
some  degree  of  skill  the  old  and  common-place  matter  wliich  he 
presfiits;  and  disposed  to  maintain  his  cause  by  fair  reasoniu!!, 
as  he  understands  it,  rather  than  by  denunciation  or  acrimony. 
In  these  respects  the  manual  before  ns  is  worliiy  of  much 
praise.  If  all  writers  in  favor  of  prelacy  had  maintained  an 
equally  iuoffensive  and  respectful  manner,  it  woidd  have  formed 
a  much  less  revolting  page  than  it  does,  in  the  history  of  eccle- 
siastical polemics. 

If  there  be  a  feature  in  this  Tract  which  partakes  in  any 
measure  of  novelty,  ii  is  that  the  author  should  i)e  willing  to 
bring  E()iscopacy  to  the  "test  of  Scriptcke."'  His  prcdeces- 
sr)rs  have  seldom  ventured  to  risk  this.  It  lias  generally  been 
their  jxdicy  to  pass  in  a  very  cursory  manner  over  the  testimony 
drawn  from  the  inspired  writings,  aiul  to  place  their  chief  reli- 
ance on  that  of  the  "  fathers."     And  even  when  the  question 


203  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

was  asked,  "What  saith  the  Scripture?"  it  was  seldom  the 
inspired  oracle  alone  that  was  consulted  ;  but  Scripture  inter- 
])reled,  commented  upon,  and  modified  by  human  authority. 
We  are  ghid  to  see  the  appeal  made,  and  for  once,  professedly 
confined  to  the  Word  of  God.  When  fairly  brought  to  this  test, 
we  cannot  doubt  the  issue  among  all  impartial  judges.  We  are 
not  merely  willing,  then,  but  insjst  that  llie  whole  subject  shall 
be  brouglit  and  decided  before  this  tribunal.  The  Bible  con- 
tains the  religion^of  Protestants.  It  is  the  only  infallible  rule  of 
faith  and  practice.  By  this  great  rule  we  must  try  the  fathers 
themselves.  And  whatever,  in  their  writings,  is  not  supported 
by  the  Bible,  we  are  bound  to  reject  without  hesitation. 

Before  Bishop  Onderdonk  proceeds  to  array  in  form  the 
testimony  of  Scripture  in  favor  of  Episcopacy,  he  attempts  to 
dispose  of  what  he  calls  certain  "  extraneous  quesiious  and 
difficulties,  and  to  show  either  tlieir  fallacy  or  irrelevancy."  We 
are  quite  willmg  tliat  these  "questions  and  difficulties"  should 
be,  for  the  present,  put  out  of  view.  Not  because  we  think 
liiem  really  either  irrelevant  or  unimportant;  but  because  we 
do  not  think  them  essential;  and  because  we  are  disposed  to 
disembarrass  the  main  question  as  much  as  possible,  and  to 
keep  the  mind  of  every  reader  firmly  fixed  on  tlie  position  of 
the  writer  before  us,  that  Episcopacy  is  tauglit  in  the  Bible. 
To  this  position,  therefore,  let  us  address  ourselves  with  all 
candor  and  impartiality. 

Bishop  Onderdonk,  then,  maintains,  that  the  Gospel  ministry 
was,  by  Divine  authority,  "established  in  three  orders,  called, 
ever  since  tlie  apostolic  age,  bishops,  presbyters  or  elders,  and 
deacons  J  of  which  the  highest  only  —  tliat  is,  bishops  —  has  a 
right  to  ordain  and  confirm,"  &c.  In  opposition  to  this  claim, 
Presbyterians  maintain,  that,  by  Divine  authority,  the  Gospel 
ministry  was  established  in  a  single  order ;  that  all  ministers  in 
the  apostolic  Church,  who  were  authorized  to  preach  the  Gos- 
pel, and  administer  the  Christian  sacraments,  were  empowered 
to  perform  the  highest  functions  of  the  sacred  office.  We  differ, 
then,  in  regard  to  the  Christian  ministry,  in  two  respects,  from 
our  Episcopal  l)rethren.  In  ihejirst  place,  we  confidently  deny 
that  there  is  the  least  foundation  in  Scripture  for  considering 
deacons  as  an  order  of  Gospel  ministers  at  all.  And,  in  the 
second  place,  we  as  confidently  assert  that  there  is  no  authority 
whatever  in  the  Word  of  God  for  any  "  order "  of  ministers 
above  that  of  ordinary  pastors. 

I.  On  the  first  of  these  points  it  is  not  our  intention  to  dwell 
long.  Not  merely  because  Bishop  Onderdonk  says  little  about 
it;  but  also  because  if  the  second  point,  viz.  that  which  relates 
to  the  claim  of  the  bishop,  or  alleged  higliest  order,  cannot  be 
sustained — as  we  are  very  sure  it  cannot — the  claim  of  the  dea- 
con to  a  share  in  the  evangelical  ministry,  as  one  of  "  three 
orders,"  will  fall  of  course.  We  say,  then,  that  the  alleged  claim 
of  the  deacon,  in  the  Episcopal  Church,  to  a  place  as  one  of  the 


TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  20^ 

"orders  of  clergj'" — has  no  foundation  whatever  in  the  Word  of 
God.  To  establish  lliis,  )ioihing  more  is  necessary  than  to 
plaiice  at  the  inspired  record,  in  Acts  vi.  1-7,  uliere  llie  original 
appoiiitnieiit,  ami  tlie  duties  of  deacons,  are  explicitly  and  [ilainly 
stated.  "In  tliose  days,  when  the  nnmlier  of  the  disciples  was 
nnilt:{)lied,  there  arose  a  mnrmuring  of  the  Grecians  against  the 
Hebrews,  becanse  their  widows  were  neglected  in  the  daily 
ministrations.  Tlien  the  twelve  called  tlie  mnltitnde  of  the  dis- 
ciples unto  then),  and  said,  'It  is  not  meet  tliat  we  should  leave 
the  \Vord  cf  Vfon,  and  serve  tables.  "Wlierefore,  brelliren,  look 
ye  osil  seven  men  of  lionest  report,  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
wisdom,   wlioni   we  may  appoint  over  this  business.    Bnt  we 

WII.l.  GIVE  OCRSELVES    CONTINUALLY  TO  PRAYER.     AND  TO  THE    IMLMS- 

TRY  OF  THE  WORD.'  And  the  saying  pleased  the  whole  nnilti- 
tude;  and  they  chose  Stephen,  a  man  full  of  faith  and  of  the 
Holy  GnosT.  and  Philip,  and  Prochoriis,  and  Nicaiior,  and 
Tlinon,  and  Parmenas,  and  Nicolas,  a  proselyte  of  Aiitinch; 
wlioni  tliey  set  before  the  Apostles;  and  wiien  they  liad  prayed, 
they  laid  their  liands  on  them." 

'i'his-  is  \.\\v.  first  and  the  o/////  account  in  the  whole  New  Tes- 
tament of  the  original  a|)pointment  of  deacons,  and  the  only 
statement  which  we  find  of  their  appropriate  duties.  And  we 
appeal  to  every  candid  reader  whether  it  affords  the  least  coun- 
tenance to  the  idea  that  the  deaconsliip  was  tltc7i  an  office 
which  had  aiu'  thing  to  do  witli  preaching  and  baptizing ;  m 
other  words,  wiietlier  it  was  an  office  at  all  devoted  to  the  spi- 
ritual dulifs  of  ilie  sanctuary?  Really,  if  such  an  idea  liad  not 
been  actually  advanced,  it  would  never  have  occurred  to  ns  as 
possible  that  it  should  enter  tlie  mind  of  any  thinking  man. 
Indeed,  if  the  whole  passage  had  been  constructed  upon  the 
distinct  plan  of  precluding  the  possibility  of  such  an  interpreta- 
tion, it  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  such  a  design  could  have 
been  more  clearly  manifest.  The  Apostles  say,  "  It  is  not  meet 
that  wc  Should  leave  the  word  of  God — (that  is,  evidently, — 
LEAVE  preachlng) — aud  SERVE  TABLES;  whcrcforc,  look  ye  out 
seven  men,  &c.,  whom  we  may  appoint  over  this  business; 
(that  is,  this  business  of  serving  tables,)  and  ire  will  give  our- 
selves to  prayer,  and  to  the  miiiistnj  of  the  xcord?''  Can  any 
man  who  is  not  blindly  wedded  to  a  system,  consider  this  pas- 
sage as  importing  that  deacons  were  aj)poiiited  to  lie  preachers 
<jf  the  word  ?  Nay,  is  it  not  expressly  stated  that  the  A[)oslles 
considered  the  duties  of  this  oflice  as  of  such  a  nature,  that 
their  undertaking  to  fulfil  them  would  compel  ihein  to  leave 
PREACHING,  and  devote  themselves  to  tlie  care  of  money  tables  ? 

It  militates  nottiing  against  this  plain  statement  of  the  inspired 
historian,  that  he  represents  Stcplien,  one  of  these  deacons,  as 
srjon. after  his  appointment,  defending  himself  with  great  power 
before  the  Jewish  council;  and  Phili]).  another  of  them,  em- 
ployed in  a  year  or  two  after  his  ordination  to  the  deaconsliip, 
preaching  and  baptizing  in  Samaria.     AN  illi  respect  to  Stephen, 


204  REVIEW — EriSCOPACY 

it  is  not  said,  that  he  either  preached  or  baptized.  He  simply 
replied  to  lliose  who  "disputed"  with  him,  and  defended  him- 
self before  the  council  by  which  he  was  arraigned.  In  all 
tills,  tiiere  was  evidently  nothing  which  any  man  might  not  do, 
in  any  age  of  tiie  Church,  wilhunt  infringing  ecclesiastical  order. 
And  as  to  Philip,  when  we  read  a  few  chapters  onward  in  the 
same  book,  (Acts  xxi.  8,)  we  find  him  spoken  of  as  '•  Philip  the 
evdmrelis!,  who  was  one  of  the  seven."  Here,  then,  we  find 
precisely  the  same  title  given  to  this  man  tliat  was  afterward 
given  to  Timoiliy.  (2  Tim.  iv.  6.)  From  which  we  may  confi- 
dently infer,  that,  liaving  "  used  the  office  of  a  deacon  well," 
(1  Tim.  iii.  13,)  in  tiie  cliurch  of  Jerusalem,  and  being  found  a 
man  "  full  of  tiie  Holy  Ghost  and  of  wisdom,"  when  he  and  liis 
brethren  were  driven  frmn  that  city,  and  were  all  "scattered 
abroad  in  consequence  of  the  persecution  which  arose  about  his 
colleague,  Stephen,"  he  was  invested  with  a  new  office,  and  sent 
forth  to  minister  in  various  parts  of  the  country  aa  an  "evanije- 
list."  At  any  rate,  notliing  is  plainer  tlian  tiiat  the  "ministry 
of  the  word  *'  made  no  part  of  the  deacon's  office,  as  laid  down 
by  tiie  Apostles  ;  and  as  he  is  soon  afterward  introduced  to  us  as 
bearing  the  office  of  an  "evangelist,"  the  appropriate  function 
of  whic'i  we  know  w^as  preaching  tlie  Gospel,  we  are  warranted 
in  concluding  that  he  was  set  apart  to  the  latter  office  before  he 
went  forth  to  engage  in  public  preaching.  In  short,  until  it 
can  be  proved  that  Philip  preaclied  and  baptized  as  a  deacon, 
and  not  as  an  evangelist, — wliich  we  are  perfectly  sure  never 
can  be  proved — the  allegation,  that  tlie  apostolic  deacons  were 
preachers,  is  perfectly  destitute  of  scriptural  support;  nay, 
directly  opposed  to  the  scriptural  account  of  the  institution  of 
their  office. 

Accordingly,  when  in  the  subsequent  parts  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment there  is  a  reference  to  the  proper  qualificationn  for  the 
deacons'  office,  no  intimation  is  given  thai,  in  tiie  candidates  for 
that  office,  the  gifts  requisite  for  puldic  instruction  were  re- 
ceived. We  are  told  that  it  was  necessary  that  those  who  bore 
this  office  should  be  sober,  grave,  failliful  in  all  things,  ruling 
their  own  houses  well,  sound  in  the  faith,  &c.,  but  not  a  word 
of  their  being  "  apt  to  teach,"  as  was  expressly  demanded  of 
all  who  were  candidates  for  "  ministering  in  the  word  and 
doctrine." 

It  is  plain,  then,  that  "  the  order  of  deacons,"  as  one  of  the 
"three  orders  of  clergy,"  for  which  our  Episcopal  brethren 
contend,  cannot  stand  the  test  of  Scripture.  It  must,  undoubt 
ediy,  be  given  up,  if  we  would  be  governed  by  the  word  of  God. 
Deacons  there  undoubtedly  were  in  the  apostolic  Church  ;  but 
they  were  evidently  curators  of  the  poor,  and  attendants  f)n  the 
tables  of  the  Church;  precisely  such  as  were  found  in  .  the 
Jewish  synagogues,  before  the  coming  of  Christ,  and  such  as 
are  found  in  all  completely  organized  Presbyterian  churches  at 
the  present  day.     And  this  continued  to  be  the  nature  of  the 


TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  205 

office  for  several  hundred  years  after  the  apostolic  age.  But 
when  a  spirit  of  carnal  anibiiion  began  to  reign  in  the  Church, 
and  led  ecclesiastical  men  to  aspire  and  encroach,  deacons 
invaded  the  province  of  preachers,  and  coinnnlted  to  "  6'm6- 
deaco}is"  the  burden  of  their  primitive  duties.* 

Having  tiins  being  compelled  to  set  aside  one  "order"  of 
Episcopal  clergjnien,  when  "  tested  by  Scripture,"  we  now 
proceed. 

II.  To  the  second  point  insisted  on  by  the  author  of  this 
Tract,  and  which,  indeed,  evidently  forms  his  main  object,  viz. 
that  we  are  taujiht  in  Scripture,  that  in  the  apostolic  Church, 
there  was  a  grade  of  ministers  of  the  Gospel  superior  to  the 
ordinary  pastors;  above  comnion  ministers  of  the  word  and 
sacranu.'iils ;  that  ministers  of  tliis  grade  were  alone  empowered 
to  urdain,  to  cuiijif)n,  and  to  govern  the  Ciiurch  ; — and  that 
there  is  evidence  in  Scripture  tliat  this  arrangement  was  in- 
tended to  be  pennanent.  Such  is  the  confident  allegation  of 
Bishop  Ondcrdonk;  and  he  professes  an  entire  willingness  to 
rest  this  Episcopal  claim  on  scriptural  testiinonij  alune.  It  is 
hoped  that  our  readers  will  bear  this  in  mind,  and  not  suffer 


*  Tlie  foUoAving  extracts  from  early  writers  plainly  show,  not  only  that  the 
deacon's  office  was,  originally,  what  we  have  above  represented,  but  that  this  con- 
tinneil  ti>  be  the  case  (or  seviTal  centuries.  Hennas,  one  of  tlie  apostolical  fathers, 
in  li'.s  Similitude,  9,  27,  tells  us  that  ''of  such  as  believeJ,  some  were  set  over 
inferior  functions,  or  services,  being  intrusted  witli  the  care  of  the  poor  and 
widows."  Origen,  (Tyacl  16,  in  Matt.)  says,  "These  deacons  preside  over  tlic 
moneytables  of  the  Cluirch."  And  again,  "Tlie  deacons  who  do  nut  ma7iage 
well  the  monetj  of  trie  Church  committed  to  their  care,  but  act  a  fraudulent  part,  and 
dispense  it.  not  according  to  justice,  but  for  the  purpose  of  euricb.ing  themselves; — 
these  act  the  part  of  money  changers,  and  keepers  of  those  tables  which  our  Lord  over- 
tm-ned.  For  the  deacons  were  appointed  to  preside  over  the  tables  of  the  Church,  as 
ve  are  taught  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles."  Cyprian,  (Epist.  52,)  speaks  of  a  certain 
deacon  who  had  been  deposed  Irom  his  "sacred  deacoushipon  accovmtof  his  fraudu- 
lent and  sacrilegious  misapplication  of  the  Church's  inoney  to  his  own  private  use; 
and  for  his  denial  of  the  widnips'  and  orphans'  pledges  deposited  with  iiim." 
And,  in  another  place,  (Epist.  3,  ad  Rogatianum,)  as  a  proof  that  his  view 
of  this  office  is  not  niisappreliended,  he  refers  the  appointment  of  \\\e  first  deacons 
to  the  choice  and  ordination  at  Jerusalem,  as  already  recited.  Ambrose,  in  speak- 
ing of  the  fourth  century,  the  time  in  which  he  lived,  (Comment,  in  Ephcs.  iv.) 
says,  "The  deacons  do  7iot  puhiicly  preach."  Clirysostoui,  who  lived  in  the 
same  century,  in  his  commentary  on  Acts  vi.  remarks,  that  "the  deacons  had 
need  of  great  wisdom,  although  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  was  not  committed  to 
them;"  and  observes  further,  that  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  they  should  have 
both  the  offices  of  preacldng  and  taking  care  of  the  poor  committed  to  them, 
seeing  it  is  impossible  for  them  to  discharge  both  functions  adequately.  Jerome, 
in  his  letter,  to  Evagrius,  calls  deacons  "ministers  of  tables  and  wido;es." 
And  in  the  Apostolical  Constitution.^;  which,  though  undoubtedly  spurious  as 
an  aiKislolical  wcrk,  may  probably  be  relerred  to  the  (ijurtli  or  fifth  century,  it  is 
di-"lari-d,  (l>ib.  viii.  cap.' 28.)  "It  is  not  lawful  for  the  deacons  to  baptize  ot  lo  admi- 
nister liie  eurhaiist,  or  tB  pronounce  the  greater  or  smaller  beni'diction."  Other 
citations,  to  the  same  auK«int,  might  easily  be  produced.  But  it  is  unnecessary. 
The  above  furnish  a  clear  indication  of  the  nature  of  the  deacon's  oflice  in  the 
primitive  Church.  Yet  as  this  testimony  is  not  that  of  Scnii'TURE,  it  has  not 
been  thought  proper  to  embrace  it  in  the  body  of  our  review,  but  to  present  it 
in  this  form,  that  it  may  bo  estimated  for  what  it  is  worth.  And  surely,  on  tho 
principles  of  our  Episcopal  brethren,  it  is  worth  much. 

IR 


206  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

themselves  for  a  moment  to  forget  that  our  appeal  is  to  the 
Bible,  and  to  the  Bible  only.  Does  the  Bible,  then,  counte- 
nance tlie  claim  that  prelates,  or  an  order  of  ministers  superior 
to  ordinary  pastors,  and  havinar  alone  a  right  to  ordain,  &c. 
were  eslaljlished  by  Divine  appointment  in  the  apostolic  age, 
and  intended  to  be  a  pcrinanent  orckr  in  the  Christian  Church'? 
The  author  of  the  Tract  before  us  maintains  tlie  affirmative. 
We  are  constrained  with  confidence  to  take  the  negative  side^ 
and  to  tlie  Scriptures  we  make  our  appeal. 

Bishop  Onderdonk  sets  out  in  his  argument  with  acknowledg- 
ing tliat  "  the  name  bishop,  which  now  (among  Episcopalians) 
designates  the  highest  grade  of  the  ministry,  is  not  appropriated 
to  that  office  in  Scripture.  That  name,  he  confesses,  is  there 
always  given  to  the  middle  order  of  presbyters;  and  all  that  we 
read  in  the  New  Testament  concerning  '  bishops,'  (including,  of 
course,  the  words  'overseers'  and  '  oversiglit,'  which  have  the 
same  derivation)  is  to  be  regarded  as  pertaining  to  tiiat  middle 
grade.  Tiie  higliest  grade  is  there  found  in  those  called  'apos- 
tles.' And  it  was  after  the  apostolic  age  that  the  name 
'bishop'  was  taken  from  the  second  order,  and  appropriated 
to  the  first.  In  short,  the  doctrine  of  this  Tract  is,  that  in  the 
days  of  the  Apostles,  the  title  of  bishop  was  a[)plied  to  presby- 
ters, that  is,  to  ordinary  pastors,  or  parish  ministers,  and  to 
them,  alone ;  that  during  tliis  lime  the  Apostles  were  tlie  prelates 
of  the  Church  ;  that  the  A[)ostles  alone,  while  they  lived,  were 
invested  with  the  power  of  ordination  ;  that  when  they  died, 
they  were  succeeded  in  their  pre-eminent  rank  by  ministers  of 
a  corresponding  grade  ;  that  this  superior  class  of  ministers, 
who  were  the  true  and  only  successors  of  the  Aposiles,  thought 
proper  to  drop  the  name  of  ''apostles,"  (whether  through 
modestij  or  policy  the  author  does  not  say,)  and  to  assume  that 
of  "bishop,"  which  had  before  belonged  to  common  pastors. 
All  tliis,  we  are  given  to  understand,  can  be  demonstrated  from 
Scripture* 

In  regard  to  the  first  step  in  this  train  of  allegations — for  we 
will  not  call  it  argument — we  entirely  agree  with  Dr.  Onderdonk. 


*  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  the  author  of  this  Tract  chfiers  widely  in  the  ground 
which  he  assumes  from  one  of  the  most  h^arin-d  and  al)le  advocates  of  E|)isciipacy 
that  ever  lived.  We  refer  to  tlie  celebrated  Dr.  Henry  Hammond,  undoubtedly 
one  of  the  most  erudite  and  able  divines  of  tlie  Ghiuch  of  Enoland  that  lived 
in  tho  seventeenth  century,  and  at  least  equal  in  learning  and  talent  to  any  bishop 
now  on  the  stage.  He  maintained,  in  direct  opposition  to  Bisliop  Onderdonk,  that 
alt  the  persons  denominated  iishops  and  presbyters  in  the  New  Testament,  (the 
names  being  then  common.)  were  j^^'ulates  or  bis/tops,  properly  so  called  ;  and  that 
the  second  order,  that  of  presb3'ters,  was  not  instituted  until  after  the  apostolic  age. 
Dr.  Hammond  appears  to  have  been  just  as  confidfnt  that  his  docliine  was 
tatiglit  in  Scripture  as  our  author  can  be  that  the  opposite  to  it  is  there  found. 
Which  of  these  prelatical  champions  shall  we  believe  ?  "  Who  siiull  decUe  when 
doctors  disagi'ee'!"  We  are  persuaded  that  the  spirit  of  the  New  Tesiament 
frowns  equally  upon  both.  In  the  meanwhile,  it  appears  liiat  our  Episi.opal 
friends  are  not  agreed  in  the  ground  which  they  take  for  the  support  of  their 
cause. 


TESTED   BY    SCRIPTURE.  207 

Nothin?  can  be  plainer  than  that  whenever  the  title  of -bisliop" 
i.<  apolied  in  the  New  Testament  to  Gospel  mini^ters,  it  desjoiiates 
ordinary  pastors.  A  scriptural  hisiiop  was  tiie  spiritnal  teacher 
and  guide,  or  "overseer,"  of  a  particular  flock  ;  and  the  same 
men  were  called  "elders,"  or  "presbyters,"  and  "bishops"  inier- 
changeably,  the  names  being  common.  This  Dr.  Onderdonk 
concedes,  and  we  have  no  doubt  with  entire  correctness,  lint 
in  all  the  succeedinjr  steps  of  his  course,  we  have  quite  as  little 
doubt  that  lie  proceeds  witliont  the  smallest  support  from  Scrip- 
ttire  ;  nav,  in  direct  opposition  to  the  wiiole  spirit  and  scope  of 
ilie  New  Testament. 

This  writer  contends — and  it  is  essential  to  his  cause  that  he 
be  able  to  show — that  while  the  Apostles  lived  they  bore  a  supe- 
rior ecclesiastical  rank,  and  wfie  endowed  with  ecclesiastical 
rii^hts  superior  to  other  ministers;  that,  in  particular,  the  ri^lit 
of  orrlainingw'ns  confined  to  them  ;  and  that,  when  their  ministry 
terminated,  they  left  this  pre-eminent  rank,  and  these  peculiar 
riirfils,  to  certain  prelates,  who  were  their  successors  in  power 
and  pre-eminence.  Now  the  fact  is,  that  uU  these  points,  though 
brought  forward  with  some  show,  and  evti:  parade  of  argument, 
are  wholly  without  support  from  Scripture,  and  have  not  one  of 
ttiem  been  made  out  by  our  author.  It  is  not  denied,  indeed, 
that  the  Apostles  bore  a  peculiar  character,  and  had  extraordi- 
nary powers  and  prerogatives  imparted  to  them,  adapted  to  the 
peculiar  circumstances  in  which  they  were  placed.  For,  until 
the  canon  of  the  New  Testament  was  completed,  they  might  be 
said,  to  a  certain  extent,  to  supply  its  place,  and  by  in.tpiration 
and  the  exercise  of  viiraculons  powers,  to  be,  in  a  peculiar  sense, 
the  amborized  leaders  and  guides  of  the  primitive  Church.  "The 
apostolic  office" — says  Dr.  Barrow,  universally  known  to  be  au 
eminent  Episcopal  divine — "r/.s  such,  was  personal  and  tempo- 
jary;  and,  therefore,  according  to  its  nature  and  design,  not 
succcss-ive,  nor  communicable  to  others,  in  perpetual  descendence 
from  them.  It  was,  as  such,  in  all  resjiects  extraordinary ; 
conferred  in  a  special  manner;  designed  for  special  ]mi*])osei^ ; 
discharged  by  specicd  r/?V/s; 'endowed  with  special  pririleges, 
as  was  needful  for  the  propagation  of  Cliristianity,  and  founding 
of  churches.  To  that  ofiice  it  was  requisite  that  the  person 
should  have  an  immediate  designation  and  commission  from 
God;  that  he  shotdd  be  endowed  with  miraculous  gifts  and 
graces;  that  he  should  be  able,  according  to  his  discretion,  to 
impart  spiritual  gifts;  and  that  lie  should  govern  in  an  alisolute 
manner,  as  being  guided  by  infallible  assistance,  to  which  he 
might  appeal.  Now  such  an  office,  consisting  of  so  many  extra- 
ordinary privileges,  and  miracidous  powers,  which  were  requisite 
for  the  foundation  of  the  Church,  was  not  designed  to  continue 
hrj  derivation  ;  for  it  contained  in  it  divers  things,  which  appa- 
rently were  not  communicated,  and  which  no  man  without  gross 
imposture  and  hypocrisy,  could  challenge  to  himself"  Pope'^s 
Supremacy,  pp.  122, 123,  A'  Y.  edition.    Such  was  the  judgment 


208  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

of  this  eminently  learned  and  able  Episcopalian,  concerning  the 
foundation  of  the  whole  argument  before  us.  Tliere  is  not  a 
shadow  of  support  to  be  found  in  Scripture  fi)r  tlie  alleged 
transmission  of  the  pre-eminent  and  peculiar  powers  of  the 
Apostles  to  a  set  of  ecclesiastical  successors.  As  men  endowed 
with  the  gifts  of  inspiration  and  miracles,  and  constituted  the 
infallible  guides  of  the  Church,  until  the  New  Testament  canon 
should  be  completed  ;  their  character  and  position  were  alto- 
gether extraordinary.  They  had  no  successors.  Nor  can  the 
remotest  hint  be  found  in  Scripture,  that  they  had,  or  were  ever 
intended  to  have,  any  such  successors. 

But,  considering  the  Apostles  as  ministers  of  Christ,  empow- 
ered to  preach  the  Gospel,  to  administer  Cliristian  sacraments, 
and  to  convert  the  world  to  Chkist,  they  hud  successors:  and 
these  successors  were,  manifesiiy,  all  those  who  were  empowered 
to  preach  the  Gospel,  and  to  dispense  the  sacramental  seals  of 
discipleship ;  for  in  thefinal  commission  which  liie  Saviour  gave 
to  the  Apostles,  and  which  must  be  considered  as  embracing 
their  final  and  highest  functions,  they  are  sent  forth  to  disciple 
all  nations,  to  baptize  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  :  and  it  was  in  immediate  connexion 
with  the  command  to  discharge  these  ordinary  duties,  that  the 
promise  which  is  considered  as  pointing  to  the  ministerial  succes- 
sion was  given — "  Lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  uuto  the  end 
of  the  world."  If  the  friends  of  prelacy  could  produce  even  the 
semblance  of  testimony  from  Scripture,  that  the  ordaining  power 
is  something  more  sacred  and  elevated  than  that  of  dispensing 
the  Gospel,  and  its  sealing  ordinances;  if  they  could  produce 
the  least  hint  from  the  New  Testament  that  the  powers  possessed 
by  the  Apostles  were,  after  their  decease,  divided  ;  and  that  while 
one  class  of  ministers  succeeded  to  their  lower  and  more  ordi- 
nary functions,  another  succeeded  to  certain  pre-eminent  rights 
and  powers,  not  specified  in  their  commission  ;  they  woidd  have 
some  plausible  ground  on  which  lo  rest  their  cause.  But  every 
reader  of  the  New  Testament  knows  that  there  is  not  a  syllable 
there  which  gives  the  most  distant  intimation  of  either  of  these 
alleged  facts.  On  the  contrary,  the  evidence  against  them  is 
ample  and  decisive. 

Suppose,  for  argument's  sake,  that  a  pastor  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  were  sent  to  China  or  Japan  to  preach  tiie  Gospel,  and, 
if  successful,  to  organize  churches,  agreeably  to  his  views  of 
truth  and  order.  Suppose  it  not  possible  to  send  more  than 
one,  and  that  he  were  invested  with  power  by  the  proper 
authority,  in  this  forming  state  of  things,  to  ordain  ministers, 
and  perform  every  ecclesiastical  act  necessary  to  complete  a 
Christian  organization.  Would  this  man  be  considered,  by  any 
rational  inquirer,  as  clothed  with  a  new  ojfice,  or  as  elevated  to  a 
peculiar  or  separate  '^  order  of  clergy?"  Surely  not.  He  would 
be  considered  simply  as  an  "evangelist,"  invested  with  special 
powers  from  the  necessity  of  the  case.     And  when  the  churches 


TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  209 

organized  by  him  were  prepared  for  a  regular  and  mature  Prts- 
bvterian  arrangement,  would  any  be  so  absurd  as  to  imagiiH. 
tliat  the  n)inislers  ordained  by  liim  were  his  "successors"  in 
regard  to  the  special  commission  and  powers  under  which  i  <■ 
had  acted?  Sucii  an  idea  would  be  loo  [jreposterous  to  be  enler- 
taiued  by  any  one.  They  would  be  simply  his  successors  in 
respect  to  his  original  and  ordinary  powers;  and  every  ttiirii 
connected  with  his  extraordinary  delegation  would  terminaie 
Willi  the  extraordinary  circumstances  which  gave  it  birth,  l!f 
would  transmit,  of  course,  to  those  ordained  by  him,  nothinii 
more  than  that  simple  office  which  he  bore  anterior  to  Ins 
peculiar  mission. 

'J'hus  it  was  with  the  Apostles.  Their  commission,  as  stahd 
with  great  particularity  by  the  evangelists,  empowered  them  in 
preach,  to  baptize,  to  disciple  all  nations,  and  to  teach  them  lu 
observe  all  things  wliatsoever  Christ  had  commanded.  All 
other  permanent  pow-ers  were  included  in  these;  for  there  ar,' 
none  others  mentioned.  All  ministers  of  the  Gospel  bear  this 
commission.  When  the  Apostles  left  the  world,  their  inspii lo- 
tion, their  miracles,  their  prerogative  of  guiding  the  churcbts 
by  infallible  teaching — in  a  word,  the  extraordinary  characi.  r 
w'ith  which  they  were  invested,  died  with  them,  and  all  ili;st 
tliey  tran>miited  was  that  which  was  embraced  in  their  commis- 
sion. That  they  did  not  transmit  a  large  and  very  promint  nt 
part  of  their  extradrdinary  powers.  Episcopalians  them.selv(  s 
acknowledge.  We  know^  not  that  any  modern  Protestant  bish- 
ops claim  to  be  inspired,  to  have  the  power  of  working-  miracles-, 
or  of  authoritatively  prescribing  the  will  of  Chrlst  to  the  Church, 
in  place  of  the  New  Testament.^  All  these  adjuncts  or  annexa- 
tions to  Ihe'ir  general  riffice,  constituting  them  apostles,  in  the 
strict  sense  of  the  word,  our  Episcopal  brethren  confess  ceased 
wlien  tlie  last  Apostle  left  the  world.  This  was,  no  doubt,  the 
case.  W  here,  then,  is  the  evidence  of  which  these  same  bn - 
Ihren  talk  so  mucii,  of  their  transmitting  the  pre-eminence  and 
superiority  of  tiieir  character  to  a  class  of  superior  successors? 

iJisliop  Onderdonk,  from  the  circimislance  that  he  finds  the 
"  apostles  and  elders"  frequently  distinguished  from  each  other 
in  the  New  'J'cstament  history,  takes  for  granted  that  they  were 
thus  distinguished,  because  tlie  former  were  ministers  of  a  supe- 
rior order  or  rank  to  the  latter.  He  also  supposes  that  he  finds 
evidence  in  the  New  Testament,  not  only  that  the  Aposih.s 
ordained,  but  that  they  alone  had  the  power  of  ordination  while 
they  lived.  Now,  we  will  ventm-e  to  say  tliat  there  is  not  a  sh;i- 
dow  of  evidence  in  favor  of  either  of  these  allegations  in  the\^ Ok! 
of  God.  As  to  the  oflice  of  the  apostles  and  elders  or  presbyl<  r«. 
it  was  undoubtedly  liie  sanu^  in  all  its  essential  characterisi;. -. 
Let  ai  y  imprcjudiced  reader  examine  the  commission  givt n  1  v 
our  Loud  to  the  tu-elve,  and  afterward  to  the  serenti/,  and  ilu  ii 
say,  whether  grades  of  power,  and  diversities  of  clerical  rmJ:, 
are  masked  therein.  Let  him  say  whether  it  includes  any  thing 
18* 


210  HEVIEW — EPISCOPACV 

(excepting  the  supernatural  part  of  their  powers)  but  what 
belongs  to  every  minister  of  the  Gospel.  Authority  to  preacli 
the  Gospel,  to  administer  sealing  ordinances,  and  to  make  disci- 
ples of  all  to  whom  they  are  sent,  formed  the  substance  of  the 
apostolical  commission  ;  and  the  very  same  forms  the  essence 
of  the  commission  of  all  regular  ministers  now.  Our  aullior, 
indeed,  ventures  to  affirm,  that  tlie  Apostles  were  not  distin- 
guished from  other  ministers,  while  they  lived — because  tliey 
were  appointed  by  Christ  personally  ;  nor  because  they  had 
"seen  the  Lord"  after  his  resurrection;  nor  because  of  tlieir 
miraculous  powers;  but  because  they  sustained  a  superior  cffice. 
This,  he  says,  ^'' will  not  be  ques Honed.''''  We  certainly,  liow- 
ever,  do  question  it ;  and  are  quite  sure  that  he  lias  not  proved 
it,  and  cannot  prove  it,  from  Scripture,  or  from  any  other  credi- 
ble source  of  evidence.  In  fact,  it  may  be  said  willi  truth,  that 
we  have  nothing  in  the  pamplilet  before  us,  adduced  in  favor  of 
this  position,  worth  mentioning,  but  the  simple  affirmation  of  the 
writer,  which,  on  such  a  subject,  we  beg  leave  to  decline  accept- 
ing as  conclusive. 

The  simple  and  plain  truth  of  the  case  is  this.  The  Apostles 
were  all  presbyters  or  elders.  Tiiis,  and  this  only,  was  their 
proper  ecclesiastical  offi^ce.  Accordingly,  the  Apostle  Peter 
speaivs  thus — "  The  elders  which  are  among  you  I  exhort,  wlio 
am  also  an  elder,  and  a  witness  of  tlie  sufferings  of  Christ,  and 
also  a  partaker  of  tlie  glory  that  shall  be  revealed."  Such  v/as 
Peter,  if  he  himself  understood  his  office; — an  elder.  But  he 
was  an  inspired  elder;  an  elder  endowed  with  miraculous 
GIFTS ;  an  elder  who  had  "  witnessed  tlie  sufferings "  and 
resurrection  of  Christ;  an  elder  ciiosen  to  be  one  of  the  nuin 
ber  who  should  preside  over  tlie  forming  and  rising  Church 
under  its  new  economy,  before  its  written  body  of  instructions 
were  prepared,  and  even  to  assist  in  preparing  those  instructions; 
and,  for  that  purpose,  inspired  of  God  to  counsel,  guide,  and 
instruct  the  churches  for  their  permanent  edification.  Su(;h 
were  tlie  Apostles  generally.  When  they  died,  the  inspiration, 
the  miracles  and  the  peculiar  apostolical  authority  (lied  with 
them,  and  they  simply  transmitted  their  office  as  elders  or  pres- 
byters to  their  successors.  All  this  is  plainly  to  be  gathered 
from  the  tenor  of  the  New  Testament;  and  ,when  Bishop 
Onderdonk  undertakes  to  press  the  testimony  of  Scripture  into 
the  support  of  any  other  doctrine,  he  fails,  in  our  opinion,  most 
egregiously. 

Quite  as  little  proof  have  we  that  the  ordaining  power  was 
exercised  by  the  Apostles  alone,  while  they  lived.  Or  rather, 
this  position  is  still  more  directly  opposed  to  abundant  scriptural 
evidence.  We  know  that  it  was  not  so.  Timothy,  and  Titus, 
and  Barnabas  all  ordained  ;  and  yet  they  were  none  of  them 
apostles,  in  the  appropriate  sense  of  that  title.  In  order  to  sur- 
mount this  difficulty,  however,  our  author,  with  many  others 
who  have  gone  before  him  in  this  coi)troversy,  takes  the  liberty 


TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  JJtl 

of  supposing  that  Timothy,  Titus,  Barnabas,  Silvaniis,  Andro- 
nicuH,  Jiinia,  Epaphrodiliis,  and  others  iccre  all  apostles,  in  the 
pre-eniuient  sense  of  llie  word,  ihougli  confessedly  not  of  the 
number  of  the  ticdve  ;  and  that,  thertlure,  wiien  we  n  ad  of  any 
of  these  exercising  the  ordnining  power,  we  are  to  consider  it  as 
falling  in  with  the  Episcopal  claim,  and  as  confirming  the  doc- 
trine of  tlie  Tract  before  lis.  We  have  always  considered  this 
plea  as  one  of  the  forlorn  hopes  of  onr  Episcopal  brethren,  and 
as  mncli  more  adapted  to  expose  than  to  aid  their  cause.  And 
as  wielded  by  our  author,  it  certainly  does  not  appear  to  more 
advantage,  than  in  the  hands  of  those  from  whom  he  borrowed 
it.  It  is  well  known  to  learned  men  that  the  original  (ireek 
word  which  we  translate  apostle,  signifies  a  messenger,  or  one 
who  is  sent  on  any  errand,  either  sacred  or  secular.  It  is  well 
known,  also,  that  it  has,  in  the  New  Testament,  a  'peculiar  or 
appropriated,  and  a  common  signification  ;  and  that  its  peculiar 
application  is  to  that  chosen  band  of  men,  who  were  endowed 
and  sent  in  an  extraordinary  manner  by  Christ  himself.  Of 
the  peculiar  or  restricted  application  of  this  title  we  need  not. 
select  specific  examples.  They  are  numerous  and  well  known. 
In  this  high  and  exclusive  sense,  we  are  expressly  told  it  was 
confined  to  those  who  had  "seen  tlie  Lord,"  and  who  were 
"  witnesses  of  his  sufferings  and  his  resurrection."  In  this 
sense  it  was  applied  to  the  twelve,  and  afterward  to  Matthias, 
who  was  chosen  to  take  the  place  of  Judas,  "  who  by  transgres- 
sion fell."  And,  in  the  same  specific  lueaning  of  the  tiile,  Paul 
was  an  apostle,  who  was  made  to  "  see  the  Lord,"  in  a  miracu- 
lous manner,  and  who  was  "  chosen  to  be  a  uitnvss  unto  all 
men  of  what  he  had  seen  and  heard."  Let  any  impartial  man, 
"who  doubts  wiietlier  this  is  the  meaning  of  tiie  title  of  apostle,  in 
its  primary  and  pre-eminent  sense,  as  applied  to  those  on  whom 
our  Lord  himself  bestowed  it;  let  hhn  read  the  following  scrip- 
tures, and  he  will  no  longer  doubt.  Matt.  x.  1-6;  Luke  vi. 
12-17;  Acts  1.21,  22;  Luke  xxiv.  48  ;  Acts  xxii.  14,  15;  Acts 
xxiii.  11  ;  Acts  xxvi.  16,  together  willi  many  other  parallel  pas 
sages,  which  will  readily  occur  to  all  w)io  are  familiar  with  the 
Bible. 

With  this  representation  of  the  apostolic  office.  Dr.  Barrow, 
the  learned  Episcopal  divine  before  quoted,  entirely  agrees. 
"To  tiie  oflice  of  an  apostle,"  says  he,  "  it  was  requisite  that  the 
person  should  have  an  immediate  designation  and  commission 
from  God  ;  such  as  St.  Paul  so  often  dolh  insist  u[)on  for  assert- 
ing his  title  to  this  office — "  Paul,  an  apo.^tle,  not  from  men  or  by 
man."  "Not by  men,"saitli  St.  Clirysostom  ;  "this  is  the  properly 
of  the  apostles."  It  was  requisite  that  an  apostle  should  he  able 
to  attest  concerning  our  Lord'.s  resurrection  or  ascension,  either 
immediately,  as  the  twelve,  or  by  evident  consecjuences,  as  St. 
Paul;  thus  .St.  Peter  implied,  at  the  choice;  of  Alatthias — "Where- 
fore of  those  men  which  have  comi)aiiied  with  us,  must  one  be 
ordained  to  be  a  witness  with  us  of  the  resurrection :  "  and,  "  Am  I 


212  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

not,"  saith  St.  Paul,  "an  apostle?  have  I  not  seen  the  Lord? 
According  to  that  of  Ananias — •'  The  God  of  our  fathers  hath 
chosen  tliee,  that  ihou  shuuldest  know  his  will,  and  see  that  jnst 
One,  and  s'lonldest  hear  the  voice  of  his  moutli  ;  for  Ihou  shall 
bear  witness  unto  all  men  of  what  thou  hast  seen  and  heard." 
— Papers  S'tpremact/,  p.  122. 

But  the  term  apostle  {a-noaroXo?)  is  also  sometimes  applied  in 
the  New  Testament  to  men  who  were  not  thus  immediately 
commissioned  by  Christ  in  an  extraordinary  manner,  to  be 
"witnesses  of  his  sufferings  and  his  resurrection  ;"  but  who  were 
simply  messengers,  sent  on  particular  occasions  to  perform  a 
certain  service.  This  distinction  between  the  ojicial,  and  the 
la.v  or  general  sense  of  this  term,  the  learned  translators  of  our 
English  Bible,  though  themselves  zealous  Episcopalians,  seldom 
fail  to  recognise.  Thus  Paul,  in  writing  to  the  Philippians,  ii.25i 
says  —  "f  supposed  it  necessary  to  send  unto  you  Epaphro- 
dilus,  my  brother  and  companion  in  labor,  but  your  messenger, 
(airoirroXos-,)  and  he  that  ministered  to  my  wants."  Epaphrodilus 
had  been  sent  by  the  Philippians  as  a  messenger,  or  bearer  of 
their  bounty  to  Paul.  This  we  learn  not  only  from  the  pas- 
sage just  quoted,  but  also  from  chapter  iv.  18,  of  the  same  epis- 
tle. Accordingly  he  is  styled  '■'■their  messenger."  Surely  it 
would  be  preposterous  to  consider  the  original  word  as  import- 
ing that  he  was  an  apostle  in  the  official  sense  of  that  term. 
A'jain,  the  same  Apostle,  in  designating  certain  brethren  sent 
with  Titus  to  bear  the  Church's  bounty  to  Jerusalem,  speaks 
of  them  thus — "  Whether  any  do  inquire  of  Titus,  he  is  my 
partner  and  fellow-helper  concerning  you:  or  our  brethren  be 
inquired  of,  they  are  the  messengers  (avoaroXot)  of  the  churches, 
and  the  glory  of  Christ."  Here  tlie  very  same  rule  of  inter- 
pretation applies;  and  accordingly  so  judged  the  pious  translat- 
ors of  our  Bible;  and  therefore  they  rendered  the  word  messen- 
gers, not  ''  apostles." 

With  regard  to  the  alleged  apostleship  of  Timothy  and  Silva- 
nus,  it  is  equally  unsupported.  They  are  never  called  apostles 
in  a  single  instance  in  Scripture.  It  is  true,  the  first  epistle  to 
the  Thessalonians  begins  thus  —  "Paul,  and  Silvanus,  and 
Timotheus,  unto  the  church  of  the  Thessalonians,"  &c. ;  and 
in  the  next  chapter  of  the  same  epistle,  the  Apostle  speaks  thus — 
"  Nor  of  men  sought  we  glory,  neither  of  you,  nor  yet  of  others, 
when  we  might  have  been  burdensome  as  the  apostles  of  Christ." 
In  this  latter  verse,  the  Apostle  undoubtedly  either  speaks  of 
himself  in  the  plural  number,  which  he  often  does;  or  refers  to 
some  other  of  the  Apostles,  of  whom  the  same  migiit  be  said. 
That  in  using  this  language,  he  did  not  refer  to  Silvanus,  or 
Timotheus,  is  plain,  because,  in  a  verse  or  two  before,  he  says 
— still  using  the  plural  number — "  We  were  shamefully  entreated, 
as  ye  know,  at  Philippi,"  &c.  When  tlie  Apostle  was  treated 
with  so  much  violence  at  Philippi,  certainly  Timotheus  was 
not  with  hiin.     Besides,  neither  Silvanus  nor  Timotheus  was  "  a 


TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE.  813 

witness"  of  the  sufferings  and  resurrection  of  their  Master. 
Neither  of  tliem  was  iinuiediately  coininissioiied  by  the  Saviour 
himself,  as  llie  Apostles  were:  on  the  contrary,  Timothy  was 
ordained,  agreeably  to  the  simple  apostolic-al  practice,  "  with  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery."  And  the  Apostle 
Paul,  in  other  places,  while  he  speaks  affectionately  of  his  ''son 
in  the  faiih,"  at  llie  same  lime  mentions  him  in  a  manner  whiet» 
plainly  evinces  a  marked  distinction  betwec^n  his  o/Hce  and  that 
of  the  aposileship.  Take  as  an  example,  2  Cor.  i.  1 — "  Paul,  an 
apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  Timothy  our  brother.''''  And, 
again,  Colossians  i.  1 — "Paul,  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
Timothy  our  brother^  Here  we  have  the  very  same  eviderice 
of  diversity  of  rank  that  our  author  deems  so  decisive  when  he 
finds  mention  made  of  apostles  and  elders.  Surely  the  humble 
and  affectionate  Paul  would  not  have  spoken  thus,  if  Timothy 
had  possessed  an  equal  right  with  himself  to  the  title  of  "an 
apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,"  in  the  official  and  appropriate  sense 
of  that  title. 

The  claim  advanced  in  behalf  of  Andronicus  and  Junia,*  as 
apostles,  is  not  only  imfoimded,  but  really  bordering  on  the 
ridiculous.  The  only  testimony  advanced  in  support  of  this 
claim,  is  the  language  of  the  Apostle  Paul  in  the  close  of  his 
Efjistle  to  tlie  Romans,  xvi.  7 — "  Salute  Andronicus  and  Jmiia,  . 
my  kinsmen,  and  my  fellow-prisoner.s,  who  are  of  note  among 
the  Apostles."  This  passage  wotdd  never  have  been  thought  of 
as  admitting  the  construction  which  (he  friends  of  prelacy  attach 
to  it,  had  not  their  cause  stood  greatly  in  need  of  testimony.  lis 
obvious  and  simple  meaning  is,  that  these  persons  were  "held  in 
high  estimation  by  the  Apostles;"  or  were  regarded  by  the  Apos- 
tles as  of  note,  or  conspicuous  among  their  friends.  Tliis  is  the 
general  interpretation  of  intelligent  and  im[)artial  commentators; 
and  more  caniu»t  be  made  of  the  passage,  unless  by  those  who 
resolve  that  it  sliall  speak  in  favor  of  their  cause. 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  none  of  these  persons  were  apostles, 
in  the  official  and  restricted  sense  of  that  title;  and  as  we 
know  that  Barnabas,  'J'imothy,  and  Titus,  ordained,  it  follows, 
inevitably,  that  the  ordaining  power  was  not  confined  to  the 
Apostles  while  they  lived  ;  and,  of  course,  that  this  whole  branch 
of  our  author's  argument  falls  to  the  groinid.  Nothing  can  be 
plainer  than  that  '•  pastors,"  "  teachers,"  and  "  evangelists,"  even 


♦  Tt-ere  is  snme  roason  to  tiolieve  that  Jniiia,  one  of  tlicse  persons  wlinm  Hisliop 
Ondi'idonk  lias  dul)l)(fl  apostles,  was  a  wimian  !  Tlie  name,  as  it  stands  in  tlie 
ori<Tiiial  is  'lovvinv,  wliieli  lias  no  arliele  to  indicate  the  <render,  and  wliich  may 
coiiH-  as  will  from  'lovvin,  as  from  'Inun'o;.  F^ilh  t  Oalnnit  remarks — "  St.  Cliry- 
sn^lom.  Tlieophylact,  and  several  others,  t^ilce  Aiidrniiiciis  for  a  man  and  Jniiia  for 
a  w/mnn,  perhaps  h!s  wife.  The  Greeks  and  I/itins  lie"])  their  festival,  May  17th, 
as  /iHshand  and  irife."  Ro.senmueller's  annotitmn  on  the  |)ass:ij;e  is  as  fiillows — 
'■' Kal  I'wvlav.  Q,nae  viddiir  fnisse  uxor  Andninici.  yl//i's  Jnnias  est  notiien  viri, 
pro  Jmiiiis."  What  renders  it  more  probable  that  Jnnia  was  a  woman  is,  that  a 
man  and  his  wife,  a  man  and  his  sister,  and  two  other  females,  are  undoubtedly 
Balutcd  in  the  preceding  and  following  verses  of  the  same  chapter. 


214  REVIEW — E?13C0PACy 

while  tlie  Apostles  lived,  often  officiated  in  ordinations — not 
nierely  as  Iniiiihle  assistants,  but  as  principals,  in  investing  others 
Willi  llie  sj'.cred  office. 

Tiie  manner  in  which  Bishop  Onderdonk  undertakes  to  dispose 
of  the  plain  record,  tiiat  Timothy  was  set  apart  to  liis  office, 
"  wilh  tl'.e  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery,"  is  one  of 
liie  most  siiiguhir  examples  of  evasion  and  management  that  we 
remember  ever  to  have  seen.  He  is  confident  that  tiie  Apostle, 
when  lie  says,  (1  Tim.  iv.  14,)  "  Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in 
thee,  which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  o.\ 
OF  THE  HANDS  OF  THE  PRESBYTERY,"  lias  00  reference  to  Timothy's 
ordination.  Why  ?  For  no  other  earllily  reason,  that  we  can 
perceive,  than  that  tliis  supposition  would  make  against  the 
Episcopal  claim.  He  does  not  deny,  indeed,  that  it  viay  refer  to 
that  transaction  ;  but  he  says,  "it  cannot,  at  least,  be  proved  lo 
do  so  ;"  and  he  chooses  rather  to  consider  it  as  "a  separation  of 
one,  already  in  the  ministry,  to  a  particular  field  of  duty."  In- 
deed, his  aversion  to  ordination  by  a  "  presbytery,"  is  so 
determined  and  invincible,  that,  rather  than  adnut  that  this 
passage  refers  to  Timothy's  ordination,  he  intimates  his  will- 
ingness to  give  up  another  passage,  in  wiiich  the  Apostle  (2  Tim. 
i.  6,)  speaks  of  "  the  gift  of  God  which  was  in  Timothy  by  the 
putting  on  of  his  (Paul's)  hands,"  as  also  having  no  reference 
lo  his  ordination  !  And  he  gravely  remarks,  tiiat,  "  if  it  have 
not,  then  Timothy's  ordination  is  nowhere  specifically  mentioned, 
but  is  to  be  inferred,  as  in  other  cases;  and,  in  this  view,  both 
these  passages  are  unconnected  witli  the  controversy  before  us." 
The  truth  is,  if  these  passages  refer  to  different  transactions,  it 
is  much  more  probable  that  the  former  refers  to  'I'imothy's 
ordination  than  the  latter,  simply  because  in  every  instance  in 
which  we  find  a  specific  account  given  of  an  ordination  in  llie 
New  Testament,  there  was  a  ■plurality  of  ordainers.  But  the 
probability  is,  that  tliey  refer  to  the  same  transaction,  viz.  the 
one  ordination  of  Timothy;  and  that  Paul  presided  in  the 
'•  presbytery"  when  that  ordination  was  performed,  "  laying  on 
hands"  with  the  rest  of  the  brethren,  wiiich  we  know  is  every 
day  done  in  our  presbyteries,  when,  as  is  commonly  the  case, 
one  of  the  older  members  presides,  and  takes  the  lead  in  impos- 
ing hands,  and  is  the  mouth  of  the  body  in  the  ordaining  prayer. 

But  even  allowing  that  the  Apostle,  in  that  passage  in  wliicii 
he  speaks  of  the  "  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery," 
refers  to  Timothy's  ordination,  still,  our  author  insists  that  no 
argument  favorable  to  presbytery  can  be  drawn  from  this  con- 
fession. The  word  (npca.Surtpioi-)  rendered  "  presbytery,"  he 
alleges  vunj  mean — not  a  body  of  presbyters,  but  the  office  of 
the  prcs'oj/terate,  or  presbi/tcrship  itself.  So  that  he  would 
propose  to  translate  the  passage  thus — "with  the  laying  on  of 
liands  to  confer  tlie  presbyterate."  In  support  of  this  fanciful 
and  ridiculous  translation,  he  quotes  Grotius,  and  refers  also  to 
Calvin,  as  giving  to  it  the  countenance  of  his  opinion.    Now,  it  is 


TESTEU    BY    SCRIl'TUIiE.  215 

granted  that  Calvin,  in  his  Institutes,  (Lib.  iv.  chap.  3,  sect.  16,) 
does  express  himself  in  a  manner  which  favors  this  interpreta- 
tion ;  but  afterward,  when  he  came  to  write  liis  commentary  on 
Timothy,  when  on  every  principle  of  justice,  we  ouglit  to  con- 
sider him  as  expressing  his  more  mature  opinion,  he  delivers  the 
following  explicit  jud{;ment — ••  Presbytery — those  wlio  consider 
lliis  as  a  culleclivc  tcrrti.,  intended  to  express  a  college  of  pres- 
byters, in  my  opinion  judge  coirecll}'."*  But  let  this  virtual 
misrepresentation  of  Calvm  pass,  ft  might  be  expected,  how- 
ever, tiiat,  after  admitting  this  interpretation  of  the  passage,  as 
referring,  not  to  a  body  of  ordaincrs,  under  tlie  name  of  a  pres- 
bytery, but  to  the  office  of  the  preshi/terate  ;  it  would,  of  course, 
be  admitted  thatTimoliiy  was  now  made  a  presbyter,  or  invested 
wi'ili  the  office  of  tiie  presbyterate.  Not  at  ail !  Tliis  inference, 
wbicii  would  seem  to  be  irresistible,  (and  which,  by  the  way,  is 
liiat  which  Calvin  assumes  in  the  passage  referred  to  by  Bisliop 
Onderdoni<.)  must  at  any  rate  be  "neutralized,"  to  em[>loy  tlie 
significant  language  of  our  author.  In  order  to  accomplish 
tiiis,  lie  reminds  ns  tiiat  the  titles  of  presbyter,  bisliop,  deacon, 
&c.,  are  so  "loosely"  and  interchangeably  applied  in  the  New 
Testament  to  all  classes  of  officers,  even  to  apostles,  that  nothing 
concUisive  can  be  drawn  from  a  name.  On  the  whole,  it  is 
evident  that  such  are  the  spectacles  with  which  this  gentleman 
views  every  object  which  relates  to  this  controversy,  that  facts, 
names,  and  tlie  plainest  statements,  if  they  happen  to  make 
against  the  claim  of  Episcopacy,  —  are  nothing,  —  absolutely 
nothing.  They  are  to  be  moulded,  tortured,  or  nullified  at 
pleasure.  But  the-  remotest  hint  tiiat  can,  by  possibility,  be 
pressed  into  the  service  of  prelacy,  is  a  conclusive  argument. 
We  have  no  doubt  of  the  entire  honesty  of  all  this  on  the  part  of 
our  autiior.  But  it  sliows  llie  wonderful  sway  of  prejudice.  A 
man  w'lo  has  been  long  in  the  liabit  of  gravely  repeating  the 
most  irrelative  and  powerless  representations  from  year  to  year, 
and  calling  tliem  arguments,  generally  comes  at  length,  sincerely 
to  believe  them  not  only  true,  but  irrcl'ragable. 

Bishop  Onderdonlv,  however,  after  plunging  from  difficulty  to 
difficiiliy,  and  from  one  utter  failure  of  proof  to  another,  in  this 
part  of  iiis  argument,  still  insists  upon  it  that  Timothy  and  Titus 
are  represented  in  th.e  New  Testament  as  prelatrfi ;  and  that  their 
character  makes  a  ch;ar  case  in  favor  of  Episcopacy.  He 
appears  to  satisfy  himself,  and  evidently  expects  to  satisfy  his 
readers,  with  such  reasoning  as  the  following.  We  do  not  pro- 
fess to  give  his  exact  language  in  the  following  sentences  ;  but 
what,  according  to  our  perception,  is  the  real  force  of  his  state- 
ment.    "  It  cannot  be  proved  that  the  Apostle,  when  he  speaks  of 

♦  Tli>^  wonl  TIp-.a^vTcpiov  occvjrs  liul  three  lirnos  in  llie  New  Tcstaiiioiit.  viz.  in 
Luke  x,vii.  66,  and  ici  Acui  xxii.  5.  In  cacli  of  tliese  cases  it  is  iinposs-ilili'  lo  !cii'l(  ;ii 
Uie  oriijinal  wiihoiii  percoivin?,  in  a  irionient,  tliat  it  vcft'i's  t.>  a  beucli  or  collitf  «l 
ciders.  The  lliird  example  of  it-s  ocv'iirrence  is  in  the  case  before  us  ;  where  we 
Uiink  llic  iKiuie  thing  is  equally  evident. 


216  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

'  ilie  hands  of  the  presbytery'  being  laid  on  Timothy,  refers  to 
liis  ordination  at  all.  It  is,  perhaps,  more  probable  that  it  refer? 
l!)  his  being  set  apart  to  a  special  and  temporary  service:  or  it 
may  he  understood  to  mean,  (if  it  does  refer  to  his  ordination.) 
ihal  he  was  set  apart,  by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  to  'the  pres- 
biiterate^  that  is  to  liie  office  of  presbyter.  Yet,  even  if  tliis  be 
supposed,  as  the  title  of  presbyter,  as  iiyed  in  the  New  Testament, 
means  any  thing  and  every  tiling  in  ecclesiastical  office,  it  may 
lie  here  construed  to  mean  something  higher  than  a  mere  pres- 
byter, strictly  speaking;  therefore  there  is  at  least  as  much 
evidence  that  it  means  a  prelate  as  a  pr-esbyter.  Besides,  for  any 
1  hing  we  know  to  the  contrary,  the  '  presbytery '  which  officiated 
iin  this  occasion  '7»ayhave  consisted  of  apostles  only,  or  of  one 
or  more  apostles  joined  with  others;'  as  the  Apostle  speaks,  In 
anotiier  place,  of  having  laid  his  own  hands  on  Timotliy.  If 
this  be  so,  it  cannot,  of  course,  be  claimed  as  a  Presbyterian,  but 
was  an  apostolic  ordination.  We  maybe  considered,  then,  as 
having  proved,  that  presbyters  alone  did  not  perform  the  ordina- 
tion, granting  the  transaction  to  have  been  one;  but  that  an 
apostle  actually  belonged,  or  else  was  added  for  this  purpose,  to 
the  body  called  a  'presbytery.'  It  is  also  worthy  of  notice  that 
Si.  Paul  makes  the  following  distinction  in  regard  to  his  own 
Mgency  and  that  of  others  in  this  supposed  ordination,  '  fty  the 
putting  on  of  my  hands'  —  ^with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of 
ihe  presbytery.'  Such  a  distinction  7nay  justly  be  regarded  as 
iniimating,  that  the  virtue  of  the  ordaining  act  flowed  from 
Paul  ;  while  the  presbytery,  or  the  rest  of  that  body,  if  he  were 
included  in  it,  expressed  only  conse^it.  On  the  wiiole,  the 
language  here  used  requires  us  to  believe  that  a  minister  of 
higher  rank  than  an  ordinary  presbyter  was  present  and  officiated 
in  this  ordination  —  or  what  is  said  to  be  the  ordination  of 
Timothy.  At  any  rate  the  Episcopal  theory  is  at  least  as  good 
a  key  as  that  of  parity  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  '  presbytery  ; ' 
and  considering  the  above  distinction  of  •by''  and  ^  with,''  our 
theory  is  obviously  the  better  of  the  two."  See  pages  18-23. 
l\\  short  this  wonderful  jingle  of  words,  denominated  argument, 
when  brought  into  a  narrower  compass,  is  to  the  following 
effect — "  It  is  doubtful  whether  either  of  these  famous  passages 
refers  tt-  the  ordination  of  Timothy  or  not.  7/' either  or  both 
hrine  huch  a  reference,  they  admit  of  an  interpretation  quite 
as  favorable  to  prelacy  as  to  parity;  therefore,  as  some  other 
[)assages  of  Scripture  seem  to  wear  an  aspect  more  favorable  to 
[)relacy  than  parity,  we  are  bound  to  interpret  these,  which  are 
acknowledged  to  be  still  more  doubtful,  in  the  same  wny.^^ 
Though  these  are  not  the  ipsissima  verba  of  our  author,  they 
really  present  no  caricature  of  his  mode  of  reasoning.  We 
verily  think  that  inferences  so  perfectly  inconsequential  and 
unwarranted  would  be  driven  from  any  enlightened  and  impar- 
tial tribunal  on  earth,  as  unworthy  of  an  answer. 
Our  author  next  attempts  to  establish,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 


TESTED    BY    SCRIPTIKE.  217 

that  Timothy  was  an  Episcopal  bishop  or  prelate  at  Ephcsus. 
This  he  endeavors  to  make  out  in  the  following  manner.  He 
first  recites  the  charge  which  tlie  Apostle  Paul  gives  to  tiie 
elders  of  Ephesus,  with  whom  he  had  an  interview  at  Milchis, 
(Acts  XX.)  He  gathers  from  tliis  charge  the  amount  of  cccle- 
siasiical  power  conunitted  to  these  elders,  and  exercised  by  tliein. 
He  then  goes  over  the  epistles  to  Timothy  ;  and  tiiinklMff  that 
he  perceives  larger  powers  and  a  higher  authority  iiilrusic-i  lo 
Tiinotliy  than  to  the  elders,  he  confidently  infers  tliat  Tinioiiiy 
Mas  a  minister  of  superior  rank  to  llie  elders;  in  other  words,  a 
prelate.  We  consider  all  his  reasoning  on  this  subject  as 
entirely  without  force,  or  even  plausibility  ;  and  we  are  per- 
suaded all  impartial  readers  wFll  make  the  same  estimate,  after 
attentively  weighing  the  following  considerations. 

1.  We  might  have  expected  great  diversity  in  the  mode  of 
address  in  these  two  cases,  because  the  circumstances  of  the 
persons  addressed  were  essentially  different.  Tlie  elders  of 
Ephesus  were  the  officers  of  an  organized  and  regular  church; 
and  were  charged  simply  with  carrying  forward  the  affairs  of  a 
collected  and  officered  flock.  Wliereas  Timothy  was  obviously 
sent  on  a  temporary  mission  to  Ephesus,  with  a  special  charge 
to  rectify  disorders,  to  correct  abuses,  and  to  convey,  imme- 
diately from  the  Apostles,  a  variety  of  special  instructions, 
respecting  the  doctrine,  tlie  worship,  and  tlie  officers  of  that 
churcii.  Surely  these  circumstances  will  abundantly  account 
for  the  peculiar  manner  in  which  Timothy  is  instructed  and 
exhorted,  and  tlie  special  powers  vested  in  him  for  discharg 
ing  the  duties  of  this  arduous  mission.  Who  wonld  expect  to 
find  the  officers  of  a  regular  church  addressed  in  the  same  man- 
ner with  an  individual  "evangelist"  sent  on  a  critical  mission 
to  the  same  church  in  a  state  of  agitation  and  disorder? 

2.  The  address  to  the  elders  of  Ephesus,  when  the  Apostle 
met  them  at  Miletus,  is  sufficient,  of  itself,  to  destroy  the  Epis- 
copal claim.  We  will  not  stop  to  inquire  whether  this  inter- 
view at  Miletus  took  place  before  or  after  the  date  of  the  first 
epistle  to  Timothy.  We  care  not  which  alternative  is  adopted, 
so  far  as  our  argument  is  concerned.  The  opinion  of  many 
learned  men  is,  that  the  interview  recorded  in  Acts  xx.  occurred 
six  or  seven  years  prior  to  the  date  of  the  epistle.  'I'liis  seems 
to  be  Bishop  Onderdonk's  opinion,  and  we  are  content  to 
assume  it  as  correct.  Now  if  it  were  so,  we  have  the  spectacle 
—  strange  and  inexplicable  on  Episcopal  grounds  —  the  specta- 
cle of  an  inspired  apostle  solemnly  addressing  the  elders  of  an 
important  churcli,  where  the  apostle  himself  had  labored  for 
three  years;  reminding  them  of  their  duties;  exhorting  them  to 
fidelity  ;  and  formally  committing  to  liiein  the  rule  and  disci- 
pline, as  well  as  the  instruction  of  the  flock;  and  all  this, 
without  so  much  as  alluding  to  an  ecclesiastical  superior.  If 
we  understand  our  author,  he  supposes  that,  at  this  time,  there 
was  no  prelate  at  Ephesus,  Timotiiy  not  having  been  yet  seat 

19 


218  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

thither.  Be  it  so.  Is  it  not  passing  strange,  then,  tliat  the 
Apostle  in  addressing  tliem  slioiild  not  allnde  to  this  defi  cl  in 
their  ecclesiastical  situation  ;  tliat  he  siiould  not  synipalliize 
with  them  in  regard  to  it;  and  promise,  or  at  least,  liini  some- 
thing about  the  future  supply  of  this  defect  —  a  defect,  on 
Episcopal  principles,  so  essential  ?  Not  a  word  like  this,  how- 
ever, IS  found.  On  tlie  contrary,  the  Apostle  solemnly  cummils 
the  whole  inspection  and  rule  of  tlie  church  to  these  elders 
theniselves,  and  distinctly  calls  them  bishops.  "Take  heed," 
says  lie,  "to  yourselves,  and  to  the  flock  over  which  tlie  Holy 
Ghost  has  made  you  overseers,  (in  the  original  zvtaKonuvi)  bishups, 
to  feed  (the  original  here  signifies  to  rule  as  well  as  to  jeal)  liie 
Church  of  God,  which  he  hath  [furchased  with  his  own  bluoJ. ' 
In  short,  he  makes  no  allusion  to  any  higher  auiiioriiy  ihan 
that  which  he  charges  lliem  to  exercise  On  this  occasion 
Timothy  himself  seeins  to  have  been  present,  Acls  xx.  4,  5. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  suppose  that  the  first  epistle  to 
Timothy  was  written  before  the  interview  at  Milt-tus,  and  that 
Timothy,  or  any  other  person,  was  then  the  prelatical  bishop  of 
the  church  of  Ephesus,  the  fair  presumption  against  the  E,.is- 
copal  claim  becomes  still  stronger.  Can  it  be  imagined,  on 
E|)iscopal  principles,  that  Paul  would  have  addressed  these 
elders,  in  the  presence  of  their  diocesan,  or  while  he  was  living, 
if  not  present,  and  would  have  committed  the  '-oversight"  of  the 
flock  entirely  to  them,  without  so  nuicli  as  hinting  that  they 
owed  any  subjection  or  reverence  to  him.,  or  to  any  person  of 
superior  rank?  It  is  impossible.  This  fact  alone  does  not 
merely  render  the  Episcopal  claim  improbable ;  it  destroys  it  5 
unless  we  suppose  that  tlte  Apostle  expressly  intended  to  deceive 
the  elders  of  Ephesus,  or  to  insult  their  diocesan,  or  that  he 
forgot — what  no  modern  Episcopalian  ever  forgets — the  dignity 
and  prerogative  of  the  prelate. 

3.  It  is  nowhere  said,  or  hinted  in  Scripture,  that  Timothy 
ever  was  bishop. of  Ephesus,  or  Titus  of  Crete.  That  is,  there 
is  no  evidence  whatever  in  the  inspired  history,  that  these  men, 
or  either  of  them,  ever  had  a  fixed  pastoral  charge,  of  many 
months',  much  less  years',  continuance,  in  the  places  in  which 
they  are  alleged  to  have  been  permanently  located  ;  or  that  they 
ever  sustained  any  title,  or  enjoyed  any  authority,  which 
marked  a  prelatical  character.  We  utterly  deny  that  they  ever 
did  ;  and  we  are  perfectly  sure  that  it  never  has  been,  or  can  be, 
proved  from  Scripture.  That  one  of  them  was  at  Ephesus,  and 
the  other  at  Crete,  on  a  special  emergency,  and  for  a  short 
time,  wei  are,  indeed,  distinctly  informed.  But  this  is  all  that 
appears.  Timothy  is  represented  as  travelling  from  place  to 
place  continually  ;  and  the  same  was  probably  the  case  with 
Titus,  The  very  epistles  themselves  which  were  directed  to 
those  missionaries  contain  evidence  that,  as  they  had  been 
recently  sent  to  Ephesus  and  Crete,  so  they  were  soon  to  depart 
and  go  elsewhere.     The  postscript  to  the  second  epistle  to 


TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  219 

Timolhy,  and  tlie  epistle  to  Titus,  wiiich  speak  of  their  being 
"  bishops,"  are  known  to  be  spurious  ;  that  is,  it  is  certain  that 
they  make  no  part  of  the  authorized  text,  and  that  they  were 
inier|)ohited  long  after  the  apivetolic  age.  Of  course,  they  have 
nothing  to  do  with  this  inquiry.  But,  though  neither  of  these 
ministers  is  said  in  Scripture  to  have  been  a  "  bishoj),-'  in  the 
Episcopal  sense  of  that  word,  Timothy  is  expressly  styled  by 
itie  A|)ostle  an  evangelist,  (2  Tim.  iv.  5,)  and  the  probability  is 
tiiat  Titus  bore  the  same  character.  If  it  be  asked,  What  was 
tlie  nature  of  the  evang-eli^fs  oWicel  We  answer,  in  general, 
he  was  a  preacher  of  Ihe  Gospel ;  —  a  hearer  of  the  Gospel  to 
those  who  had  it  not.  But  if  the  inquiry  be,  Wliat  was  tlie 
nature  of  this  office  in  the  early  Church  ?  let  Eusebius  answer. 
lie  says,  "Very  many  of  the  disciples  of  that  day  travelled 
ai)road,  and  performed  the  woi-k  of  evangelists,  ardently  ambi- 
tious of  preaching  Christ  to  liiose  who  were  yet  wholly  unac- 
quainted with  the  doctrine  of  faith,  and  to  deliver  to  them  the 
•Scripture  of  the  divine  gospels.  These  having  merely  laid  the 
foundations  of  the  faith,  and  ordained  other  pastors,  committed 
to  them  the  cultivation  of  the  churches  newly  planted;  while 
they  themselves,  supported  by  the  grace  and  co-operation  of 
Con,  proceeded  to  other  countries  and  natioiis."(lib.  iii.  cap.  37.) 
Bishop  Oiiderdoiik,  indeed,  endeavors  to  obviate  the  inference 
drawn  from  the  fact  that  Timothy  is  called  an  evangelist ; 
but  without  the  smallest  success.  The  considerations  which 
he  urges  for  refuting  it,  are  chiefly  the  following.  [1.]  "  If 
Timothy  is  called  an  evangelist,  he  is  also  called  an  apostle.'" 
This,  as  we  have  seen,  is  a  mistake;  he  is  nowhere  so  called 
in  Scripture.  [2.]  "  It  does  not  appear  that  evanselists,  as 
such,  had  any  particular  rank  in  the  ministry.  Philip,  the 
deacon,  was  an  evangelist;  and  in  Ephes.  iv.  11,  evangelists  are 
put  after  propliets."  True,  in  the  apostolic  aae,  they  had  better 
work  to  do,  than  to  contend  about  the  adjuslmcnt  of  titles,  pre- 
cedence, and  rank  in  tiie  sacred  ofiice.  But  one  tiling  is  certain, 
that  "evangelists"  are  distinguished  from  "apostles"  with  a 
distincttu;ss  which  precludes  the  possibility  of  our  considering 
thetn  as  the  same.  [3]  "  If  Timothy  were  an  evangelist,  there 
is  no  proof  that  Titus,  and  the  'angels'  of  the  seven  churches 
were  evangelists."  This  there  is  much  reason  to  believe  is 
a  mistake.  It  is  highly  probable  they  were.  At  any  rate,  we 
are  very  sure  it  cannot  be  made  to  appear  that  they  were  not. 
[4]  "Eusebius  probably  refers  to  bishops,  when  he  speaks  of 
these  evangelists  ;  and  if  so,  then  Episcopacy  still  prevails." 
This  is,  again,  an  entire  mistake.  Eusebius  does,  indeed,  men- 
tion some  as  evangelists,  by  name,  who  are  said  to  have  been 
bisho[)s.  Having  done  tliis,  he  goes  on  to  speak  of  "  many 
other  discii)les"  of  that  day,  "as  going  al)road,  and  performing 
the  work  of  evangelists;"  and  to  these,  he  explicitly  intbrms 
us,  was  c(Hiimitle(i  the  ordaininir  jimrer.  His  mode  of  speak 
ing  precludes  the  possihility  cjf  tiieir  being  bishops,  in  the  sense 


230  REVIEW^EPISCOPACY 

which  became  current  afterward  in  tlie  Church.  In  short,  the 
title  "evangelist"  is  found  but  three  limes  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Once  it  ii  applied  to  Timothy;  once  to  Philip,  who  had 
been  one  of  the  seven  deacons  at  Jerusalem;  and  once  in 
Ephes.  iv.  11,  wliere  we  read  of  "apostles,  prophets,  evange- 
lists, pastors,  and  teachers."  This  is  conclusive  proof,  as  far 
as  scriptural  authority  goes,  that  the  title  has  no  reference 
to  prelacy. 

4.  There  is  nothing  represented  in  Scripture  as  enjoined  upon 
Timolliy  and  Tilus,  or  as  done  by  them,  wiiicii  is  not  perfectly 
consistent  with  Presbyterian  priiici|)le  and  practice.  Tinu)lliy 
was  sent  to  Ephesus,  and  Titus  to  Crete,  to  do  what? — To  cor- 
rect abuses  as  to  doctrine,  worsliip  and  order ;  to  see  that  suita- 
ble persons  were  selected  and  set  apart  to  ecclesiastical  offices  ; 
and,  in  general,  to  "  set  in  order  the  things  that  were  wanting." 
It  is  well  known  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  this  country 
has  been  in  the  constant  practice,  for  more  than  half  a  century, 
of  sending  out  evangelists — just  such  men  as  Eusebius  describes 
— i  ito  destitute  settlements  to  organize  churches,  ordain  elders 
and  deacons,  correct  irregularities,  and  "set  in  order,"  as  far  as 
possible,  every  thing  that  may  be  necessary  for  Christian  edifi- 
cation. Now,  we  ask.  Why  may  not  Timothy  and  Titus  have 
been  just  such  Presbyterian  evangelists?  There  is  not  a  tittle, 
either  of  fact  or  expression,  in  the  whole  statement  respecting 
them,  which  is  inconsistent  wiih  the  supposition  ;  nay,  we  have 
no  doubt  that  this  was  the  real  fact.  It  will  avail  nothing  with 
us  to  reply,  as  our  author,  like  all  his  predecessors,  doubtless 
will  reply — that  this  cannot  be,  because  none  but  prelates  ever 
had  the  power  of  ordaining.  Shall  we  never  have  done  with 
this  constant  begging  of  the  whole  question  in  dispute?  We 
fearlessly  assert  tliat  there  is  not  a  syllable  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment wliich  even  distantly  intimates,  that  either  Timothy  or 
Tilus  perforined  liie  work  enjoined  upon  them  rather  as  prelates 
thiin  as  "  evangelists;"  and  that  there  is  just  as  much  reason  to 
assert  that  all  the  iiinerant  missionaries  sent  out  annually  by  the 
Presbyterian  Church  into  frontier  seitlements,  are  prelates,  as 
from  any  thing  that  is  said  in  the  New  Testament,  to  ascribe 
such  a  superior  rank  to  Timothy  and  Titus.  Perhaps  it  will  be 
.said,  that,  although  Presbyterian  missionaries  are  always  em- 
powered to  organize  churches,  and  to  ordain  ruling  elders  and 
deacons,  they  are  never  authorized,  singly,  to  ordain  teaching 
elders,  or  ministers  of  the  Gospel.  This  is,  no  doubt,  true. 
Yet  this  is  only  an  ecclesiastical  regulation,  not  a  necessary  or 
essential  law  of  Ckrist"s  house.  In  our  Church,  according  to 
her  present  constitution,  three  ordainers  must  always  be  present, 
and  assist  in  a  regular  ordination.  But  there  is  quite  as  regular 
a  Presbyterian  Cliurch  in  our  country,  in  which  two  ordainers 
are  sudicient.  And  a  third,  equally  regular,  also  in  our  country, 
according  to  whose  form  of  ordination,  a  single  ordainer  is  suf- 
ficient to  complete  a  regular  investiture  with  the  sacred  office. 


TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  221 

We  may  suppose,  tlien,  that  Timothy  and  Titus  might  have 
been  alone  charged  witli  the  ordaining  power,  in  the  peculiar 
circumstances  in  which  they  acted,  and  might  have  exercised 
it  accordingly,  without  the  least  departure  I'rom  Presbyterian 
principle. 

But  did  either  Timothy  or  Titus  ever,  in  a  single  instance, 
perform  the  work  of  ordination  alone  1  This  is  constantly 
taken  I'or  granted  by  Episcopalians;  and  the  establishment  of 
the  alleged  fact  is  essential  to  their  cause.  For  if  they  only 
ordained  in  company  with  others,  or  as  members,  (perhaps  tiie 
presiding  members)  of  their  respective  presbyteries,  then  we 
have,  in  each  case,  a  simple  specimen  of  Presbyterian  ordina- 
tion. But  it  is  assumed  by  Episcopalians  that  they  ordained 
alone,  witiiout  a  shadow  of  proof,  and  against  all  probability. 
The  question,  whether  there  were  or  not.  at  Ephesus  and  Crete, 
a  body  of  presbyters,  at  tliis  time,  who  migln,  upon  Presbyte- 
rian principles,  have  ofTiciated  in  the  work  of  ordination,  will 
liere  be  left  out  of  view.  Arciibishop  Potter  delivers  it  as  his 
opinion,  that  in  Crete,  at  least,  there  were  none.  But  we  shall 
forbear  to  canvass  this  question,  as  not  essential  to  the  argument 
of  parity,  however  it  may  be  answered.  Let  this  have  been  as 
it  may ;  there  is  every  reason  to  suppose  that  Timothy  and 
Titus  were  assisted  in  every  ordination  by  others.  We  know 
that  Mark  was  with  Timothy;  and  that  Zenas  and  Apollos  were 
with  Titus.  Who  can  tell  but  that  tiiese  ecclesiastical  compa- 
nions look  part  in  every  ordination?  We  cannot  positively 
assert  that  they  did;  but  it  would  be  still  more  presumptuous 
to  assert,  since  they  were  on  the  spot,  that  they  did.  not.  And 
yet,  unless  the  patrons  of  Episcopacy  can  prove  that  they  took 
no  part,  and  that  the  "evangelists"  ordained  alone,  their  whole 
argument,  drawn  from  this  case,  falls  to  the  ground. 

Nor  does  it  affect  our  reasoning  to  allege,  that  the  Apostle's 
language,  through  the  greater  part  of  the  epistles  to  Timotiiy 
and  Titus,  is  persoiial ;  —  that  is,  the  epistles  are  addressed  to 
tliem  individually.  For  example,  such  language  as  the  follow- 
ing frequently  occurs: — "This  charge  I  commit  unto  thee,  son 
Tnnotiiy  ;" — "These  things  write  I  unto  thee,  that  thou  might- 
est  know  how  to  behave  thyself  in  the  house  of  Cod  ;" — "that 
thou  mightest  ciiarge  some  thitt  they  teach  no  other  doctrine  ;" 
— "  lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man,"  &.c.  This  language  mani- 
festly avails  nothing  to  the  cause  of  prelacy  ;  for,  1.  As  these 
men  went  to  Ephesus  and  Crete  as  a  kind  of  special  envoys, 
immediately  from  the  Apostle,  it  was  natural  that  the  system  of 
instructions  should  be  addressed  to  tlietn  personally;  for  in  the 
circumstances  in  which  they  were  placed,  they  were  to  be  the 
chief  (;ounsellors  and  guides  in  every  thing  that  was  done.  2.  A 
Presbyterian  ordination  never  occurs  witiiout  addressing  to  tiie 
newly  ordained  minister  language  of  precisely  the  same  import; 
or  rather,  without  exhorting  iiim  in  the  rely  words  of  Paul  to 
Timothy.  But  no  one  ever  dreams  that  tiiis  language  is  incon- 
19* 


222  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

sistent  with  parity.  For,  alihough  no  one  of  onr  ministers  can 
regularly  ordain  alone;  yet  as  each  possesses  the  ordaining 
power,  it  is  proper  that  each  should  receive  a  separate  and 
distinct  charge.  3.  If  this  argument  proves  any  thing,  it  will 
prove  too  much,  for  it  will  prove  that  tiiese  evangelists  alone 
were  empowered  to  preach  and  prai/  in  tlie  respective  places  to 
which  they  were  sent  to  minister,  for  cliarges  in  relation  to 
these  points  are  given  to  iliem  in  the  same  personal  style. 
4.  No  evangelist  is  ever  sent  forth  hy  our  Church  for  the  purpose 
of  organizing  and  ''setting  in  order"  chuiciies,  without  bearing 
witli  him  a  body  of  special  instructions,  always  drawn  up  in 
the  form  of  a  letter,  and,  of  course,  addressed  to  him  personally. 
Are  all  these  proofs  that  our  evangelists  are  prelates? 

Ill  closing  our  remarks  on  the  alleged  prelalical  character  of 
Timothy  and  Titus,  we  have  one  circumstance  to  mention, 
which  we  cannot  help  regarding  as  decisive.  Tlie  circumstance 
is  this.  Bishop  Onderdonk,  as  we  have  seen,  explicitly  acknow- 
ledges that — '■•all  tiiat  we  read  in  the  New  Testament  concern- 
ing bishops  is  to  be  regarded  as  pertaining  to  tiie  "  middle 
grade,"  i.  e.  to  "  presbyters,"  and  never  to  prelates.  In  other 
words,  he  acknowledges  that  the  title  of  "  bishop  "  is,  in  no  case, 
in  the  New  Testament,  used  to  designate  a  minister  of  superior 
rank  ;  but  always  to  designate  ordinary  pastors.  Of  course,  the 
term  bishop,  as  found  in  the  eoislles  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  has 
no  reference  to  prelates.  Now,  if  this  be  so,  then  we  have  no 
allusion  whatever,  in  these  episiles,  to  any  such  superior  officer. 
Among  all  the  counsels  and  laws  intended  to  be  left  on  perma- 
nent record,  for  the  guidance  of  Christians  in  all  ages,  there  is 
not  the  remotest  hint  pointing  to  such  an  officer.  Presbyters, 
or  ordinary  pastors,  ruling  elders  and  deacons,  are  all  plainly 
pointed  out,  and  the  proper  qualifications  and  duties  of  each 
carefully  specified.  But  not  a  syllable  is  said  to  them  about 
prelates,  their  rights,  prerogatives,  duties,  or  mode  of  investiture. 
They  are  never  even  once  reminded  that  it  is  their  duty  to  be 
docile  and  obedient  to  their  proper  diocesan.  Assuming  Presby- 
terian principles,  this  is  perfectly  natural — just  what  might  have 
been  expected.  If  no  such  officer  existed,  of  course  he  could  not 
be  recognised  or  described.  But,  on  Episcopal  principles,  it 
appears  to  us  utterly  unaccountable.  Or  raiher,  it  aflfords,  in  our 
opinion,  conclusive  proof  that  no  such  officer  of  superior  rank 
was  then  known  in  the  Church,  or  intended  to  be  established  as 
a  permanent  order. 

We  have  only  to  notice  one  leading  argument  more  which 
Bishop  Onderdonk  employs  to  make  out  Episcopacy  from 
Scripture  ;  and  that  is  the  argument  drawn  from  the  "  angels" 
of  the  seven  Asiatic  churches.  In  reference  to  these  he  reasons 
thus.  "  Each  of  these  churches  is  addressed,  not  through  its 
clergy  at  large,  but  through  its  'angel,'  or  cliief  officer.  This 
'angel'  is  addressed  personally,  and  in  a  manner  which  implies 
much  power  and  responsibility  in  his  pastoral  charge:  the  sin- 


TESTED    BY   SCRIPTrRE.  223 

giilar  number  is  used  in  spealiing  to  him.  This  individnnl  is,  in 
each  cai5P,  ideiititit-ti  with  his  cliiircli,  and  l)is  church  w  itli  hini. 
Ergo  these  'angels'  were  prelates." 

Now,  we  ask,  What  are  all  tiiese  facts  to  our  author's  arcu- 
ments?  What  do  tliey  prove?  Wiiy  may  not  these  "aiiirtjls" 
have  been  Presbyterian  pastors,  just  as  well  as  Epi.scopal 
bisiiops  ?  Every  word  that  is  said  of  ihem  applies  quite  as 
ap[)ropriately  and  strictly  to  the  foriner  as  to  the  hitler.  Tyie 
term  '•  angel,"  in  itself,  decides  nothing.  It  simply  signififs  a 
"  messenger."  As  far  as  we  know  iis  origin,  it  was  derived 
from  the  Jewisli  synagogue;  every  particular  synagosue  having 
been  furnished  with  an  ofHcer  bearing  tiiis  title,  and  that  oflioer, 
it  is  well  known,  was  not  a  prelate.  Some  of  liie  most  learned 
Episcopal  \Witers,  however,  have  been  of  the  ojjinion,  tliat  the 
term  "angel"  is  a  figurative  expression,  intended  to  point  out 
the  collective  ministry  in  those  churches  res[)ectively  :  and 
hence  in  addressing  the  angel  of  the  church  in  Smyrna,  it  is 
said,  "Some  of  yoit  I  will  cast  into  prison,"  &c.  Nor  can  we 
infer  any  thing  from  the  addresses  made,  or  the  powers  assigned 
to  these  "angels."  'J'hey  agree  just  as  well  with  pai<iciiial 
bishops,  or  pastors,  as  with  prelates.  And  accordinjjh',  it  is 
notiirioiis  that  some  of  the  most  learned  and  able  writers  on  the 
Episcopal  side  in  this  controversy,  have  given  up  the  argument 
drawn  from  the  apocalyptic  '-angels,"  as  affording  no  real 
support  to  the  claim  of  prelacy. 

Besides,  there  is  an(jther  difficulty  respecting  these  "  angels" 
of  the  seven  churches,  when  claimed  as  prelates.  Bishop  Onder- 
donk's  theory  is,  that  the  prelates  of  the  Churcli  in  the  apostnlic 
age,  were  never  called  bisfwps,  but  apostles ;  and  that  after  the 
Apostles'  days,  these  successors  to  the  pre-eminent  a[iostolical 
powers  began  to  be  styled  bishops.  Now,  here,  according  to  our 
anihor,  we  have  a  title  which  is  neither  the  one  nor  the  other; 
and  wliich  appears,  as  a  ministerial  title,  in  no  other  part  of 
Scripture.  It  will  not  do  to  reply,  that  as  all  the  apostles  except- 
ing John,  who  was  made  the  medium  of  address  on  this  occasion, 
had  passed  away,  we  may  suppose  that  the  appointment  of 
their  prelatical  successors  had  neirly  commenced,  and  that 
these  "anpels"  are  a  specimen.  Why  not,  then,  call  them 
either  apostles  or  bishopsl  Why  flive  them  a  title  intended  to 
be  applied,  as  it  would  seem,  in  but  one  ca.<^e,  and  then  for  ever 
dropped  ?  We  surely  might  have  expected  some  inlelliaihle 
intimation  of  what  was  intended  concerning  .<fn  i^rcf/i  o  .v?;/yVr< 
as  the  names  and  "orders  of  clergy,"  before  the  sacred  canon 
was  finally  ch)sed  ;  especially  as  the  transition  period  from  the 
Apostles  to  their  "successors"  had  now  cotne.  But  no;  not  a 
word.  All  is  still  left  in  doubt  and  ohscurity.  And  the  truth  is, 
»he  aspect  and  character  of  these  addresses  themselves  do  not 
very  well  correspond  with  the  case  of  recently  appointed 
officers.  In  reference  to  at  least  tiro  of  thrm.  there  are  indica- 
tions of  a  long  preceding  incumbency  in  office,  and  of  sinking 


224  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

down  into  lukewarmness  and  sloth.  It  is  by  no  means  likely 
tluU,  under  the  eye  of  inspired  apostles,  men  already  in  this 
slate  of  moral  depression  would  have  been  selected  to  preside 
over  churclies.  In  short,  the  more  carefully  we  examine  tlie 
case  of  these  "  angels,"  the  more  all  dreams  of  their  affording 
support  to  prelacy  are  dissipated. 

Such  is  a  cursory  view  of  the  arguments  produced  from 
Scripture,  by  Bisliop  Onderkonk,  in  support  of  tlie  Episcopal 
claim.  Our  only  wonder  is,  that  he  does  not  see  them  to  be, 
boih  in  their  individual  import  and  in  their  combined  charac- 
ter, destitute  of  even  the  semblance  of  force.  At  every  step  in 
his  progress,  unless  we  are  deceived,  he  has  totally  and  mani- 
festly failed.  His  method  of  reasoning,  from  the  beginning  to 
tlie  end  of  his  pamphlet,  is  of  the  following  sort-— '' This  fact 
admits  of  an  Episcopal  construction  ;  at  any  rate,  it  cannot  be 
proved  that  its  import  is  in  favor  of  parity.  We  may,  therefore, 
take  for  granted,  or  at  least  it  will  not  be  questioned,  that  its 
meaning  is  more  favorable  to  Episcopacy  than  to  parity.  We 
are  warranted,  then,  in  assuming  this  point  as  established.  To 
us  the  proof  appears  absolute ;  but  it  is  enough  for  a  rightly  dis- 
posed mind  that  it  only  preponderate.  For,  let  it  not  be  forgot- 
ten, that  as  it  cannot  be  proved,  it  ought  not  to  be  allowed,  that 
any  but  those  who  held  the  apostolical  or  Episcopal  office, 
superior  to  that  of  mere  presbyters,  either  performed  the  ordi- 
nations mentioned  in  Scripture,  or  are  there  said  to  have  the 
right  to  perform  such  acts."  In  such  misnamed  reasoning  as 
this  our  author  abounds;  and  he  so  far  deceives  himself — 
(which  we    have  no  doubt  he  does  sincerely) — as    to  call  it 

DEMONSTRATION  ! 

But  has  he  really  proved  any  one  of  those  points  which  are 
not  merely  important,  but  even  essential  to  the  establishment  of 
his  claim  ?  Let  us,  for  a  moment,  look  back  and  recapitulate. 
Has  he  proved  that  the  ordaining  power  was  confined  to  the 
Apostles  while  they  lived  1  He  certainly  has  not.  The  con- 
trary most  manifestly  appears.  In  his  efforts  to  establish  this 
point,  has  he  proved  that  Timothy,  Barnabas  and  otiiers  were 
apostles  in  the  official  sense  of  that  title,  because  they  un- 
doubtedly ordained  ?  Not  at  all.  But  in  attempting  it,  he  has 
mangled  and  perverted  Scripture,  and  entirely  misapprehended 
the  apostolic  character.  Has  he  been  able  to  siiow  from 
Scripture  that  the  Apostles,  in  their  peculiar  and  preeminent 
character,  had  successors;  and  that  these  successors  were  the 
bishops  ?  He  has  not  even  pretended,  so  far  as  we  recollect,  to 
produce  a  single  scripture  which  gives  the  remotest  counte- 
nance to  either  of  these  positions.  Has  he  proved,  or  rendered 
even  probable,  that  Timothy  or  Titus  was  sent  to  Ephesus  or 
Crete,  not  on  a  temporary  and  extraordinary  mission,  but  to 
occupy  a  fixed  and  permanent  pastoral  charge?  He  has  not; 
nor  can  he  do  so.  For,  from  the  scriptural  account  of  the 
ministry  of  those  itinerants,  it  is  by  no  means  likely  that  they 


TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE,  226 

■were  in  either  of  those  places  more  than  a  few  months,  or  per- 
haps, weeks.  Has  he  proved  tliat  the  second  epistle  to  Timo- 
thy was  addressed  to  hiai  at  Ephesiis  at  all  ?  lie  lias  not ;  and 
some  of  tlie  most  learned  conuntMitalors  have  thoiiglit  it  alto- 
gether improbable.  Has  he  given  ns  the  least  proof  that  either 
Timothy  or  Titus  went  to  Epiiesus  or  Crete  in  any  higher 
character  than  that  of  simple  '■■  eran^clists,"  sent  on  a  special 
mission,  and  charged  for  that  purpose  with  special  powers? 
By  no  means.  The  whole  statement  concerning  them  agrees 
far  belter  with  parity  tlian  wnli  prelacy  ;  nor  is  there  a  single 
fact  or  hint  in  the  liistory  of  either  which  necessarily,  or  even 
probably,  implies  the  latter.  Has  he  shown  that  before  those 
missionaries  went  to  Ephesus  and  Crete  there  were  teaching 
presbyters  or  pastors  residing  in  both  those  places,  who  might, 
on  Presbyterian  principles,  have  performed  the  work  of  ordina- 
tion ?  Or  has  he  proved  that  eitlier  'I'imothy  or  'J'iliis  ever 
performed  a  single  ordination  alone?  He  has  not  produced  the 
least  proof  of  either,  nor  can  he  do  it.  Has  he  proved,  or  ap- 
proached to  the  proof,  that  the  "  angels"  of  the  seven  ciuirclies 
were  prelates?  Not  at  all.  Neither  their  name,  nor  any  facts 
alluded  to  in  their  case,  give  tlie  least  intimation  tliat  they  bore 
tills  character.  Tlie  same  may  be  said  of  every  fact  and  princi- 
ple peculiar  to  prelacy  which  he  has  attem[)ted  to  establish. 
Instead  of  producing  direct  and  palpable  scriptural  testimony, 
he  has  been  compelled  to  resort  to  doubtful  conjecUire,  circuit- 
ous inference,  and  remote  probabiiiiy,  or  even  possibility.  No 
one  position  is  firmly  supported.  Even  if  he  had  been  able  to 
eslablisii  every  one  of  Ihe  points  above  referred  to  as  facts,  still 
his  main  object  would  have  been  far  from  being  gained.  He 
would  still  be  obliged  to  show,  from  Scripfzire,  that  all  this  was 
intended  to  be  a  permanent  arrangement.  Tliis  he  has  not 
done.  This,  we  are  very  sure,  he  cannot  do.  His  premises 
and  his  conclusion  are  alike  unsound. 

The  last  remark  brings  again  to  our  view  a  most  singular  part 
of  Uisliop  Oiiderdonk's  argument,  to  which  we  before  alluded, 
but  which  deserv^a  more  pointed  notice.  He  grants,  (p.  12.)  as 
we  have  seen,  ttflPthc  title  of"  l)isho[),"  in  the  New  Teslainent, 
is  every  where  a[)plied  to  ordinarij  pastors  j  and  that  it  was 
after  the  apostolic  age  that  the  title  of  ''  bishop  "  was  taken  frcm 
the  "second  order  of  clergy,  and  appropriated  to  the  first." 
When  we  came  to  this  point  in  his  argument,  we  felt  curious  to 
know  what  scripture  he  would  produce  to  attest  this  last  point, 
viz.  that  "  after  the  apostolic  age,  the  title  of  '  bisliop'  was  taken 
from  the  second  order,  and  appropriated  lo  the  first."  IJiil,  at 
tills  princijial  link  in  his  chain  of  proof,  be  ai)aii(loMS  liis  pro- 
fessed ground.  "  As  we  learn,"  says  he — from  whom  ]  from  any 
inspired  writer? — not  at  all—"  as  we  learn  from  Theodoret,  one 
of  the  fathers!"  He  does  not  pretend  to  find  the  sli<:lil(st 
warrant  in  the  Bible  for  this  essenlial  part  of  his  argument. 
How  are  we  to  account  for  this?     We  thought  we  had  been 


226  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

called  to  investigate  the  claim  of  Episcopacy  as  "tested  by 
scriftitre:  "  and  here,  for  an  essential  link  in  the  chain  of  proof, 
we  are  referred  to  a  writer  in  the  JiflJi  century !  We  reject  tliis 
proof  for  several  reasons:  1.  Becanse  it  is  not  Scn'plure,  and 
Willi  tJiat  alone  we  have  to  do  at  present.  2.  Becanse  if  tliis 
change  of  iif/e  had  the  sanction  of  Divine  appointment,  and  if 
the  rank  wliicli  il  repref-euls  liad  been  regarded  as  a  matter  of 
BO  ninch  importance  as  modern  prelatisls  annex  to  it,  we  might, 
surely,  expect  to  find  in  the  New  Testament  some  intimation  of 
what  was  to  take  place.  3.  Because  no  one  doubts  that,  in  the 
fifth  century,  when  Theodoret  lived,  prelacy  had  crept  into  the 
Church,  and  was  firmly  established  ;  and  that  the  language 
which  he  employs  fell  in  witli  the  current  claims  and  practice 
of  his  day.  4.  Becanse,  if  the  testimony  of  the  fathers  is  to  settle 
this  point;  (agamst  which  we  enter  our  solemn  protest;  what 
cannot  be  found  in  the  Bible  is  no  law  for  Christians;)  if  an 
appeal  must  be  made  to  the  fathers  at  all ;  pray  let  us  go  to 
thosC  who  lived  nearest  to  "  the  apostolic  age,"  and  who,  of 
course,  are  the  most  competent  witnesses  of  what  took  place 
immediately  after  that  age,  when  this  change  of  title  is  ailegea 
by  our  author  to  have  been  brought  in.  Does  Clemens  Komanus, 
does  Ignatius,  does  Polycarp,  say  any  thing  like  what  Theodoret 
is  brought  to  testify?  Tho/ Yived  ai  the  very  lime  when  tiiis 
transfer  of  lilies  is  alleged  to  have  taken  place.  Does  any  one 
of  them  speak  of  it?  Not  a  word.  But  they  say  very  much  of 
an  opposite  import.  Ignatius  says,  again  and  again,  that  the 
presbyters  succeed  in  the  place  of  the  apostles.  Clemens, 
who  was  contemporary  with  the  Aposlle  John,  speaks  familiarly 
of  the  presbyters  in  lus  day,  as  the  rulers  of  the  Cluirch,  very 
much  in  the  language  of  the  New  Testament ;  and  Irenaeus,  who 
flourished  toward  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century,  repeatedly 
speaks  of  presbyters  as  being  successors  of  the  Apostles.  Surely 
the  representations  of  these  men,  /hough  not  constituting  our 
rule  either  of  faith  or  practice,  are  much  more  worthy  of  con- 
fidence than  the  language  of  those  who  lived  several  centuries 
afterward,  when  it  is  known  that  great  corruption,  growing  out 
of  ambition  and  worldliness,  had  found  its  wa^nlo  the  Church, 
and  when  an  erroneous  nomenclature,  as  well  as  practice,  was 
notoriously  prevalent. 

Such  is  the  result  of  our  author's  appeal  to  the  "  test  of  Scrip- 
ture." If  lie  has  proved  a  single  point  peculiar  to  the  Episcopal 
system,  from  the  New  Testament,  then  we  know  not  what  proof 
means.  Surely  if  the  inspired  writers  had  been  Episcopidians  ; 
and,  especially,  if  tiiey  had  been  believers  in  its  fnndamenial 
importance,  as  well  as  in  its  Divine  appointment  ;  tliey  could  not 
have  left  the  subject  in  their  writings — writings,  be  it  remem- 
bered, expressly  intended  to  guide  the  Church  to  the  end  of 
time  ; — they  co'dd  not,  we  repeat,  have  left  the  subject  in  so  lean 
and  doubtful  a  plight  as  it  would  appear  from  our  autlior's  state- 
ment.    Bishop  Onderdonk  has  evidently  examined  the  Scriptures 


TESTED    BY    SCRIPTU'Kf;.  227 

with  the  most  anxious  vigilance,  and  with  the  aid  of  the  best 
divines  of  his  CIiuitIi  who  have  lived  for  three  centuries;  and 
he  has  pvideiiliy  eollecU'd  every  fact,  hint  and  ailus?ion  tlial  was 
canaille  of  Liei;;g  broimiit  to  bear  wiuicss,  ever  so  niiniiti-ly  or 
reniotelv,  in  fjivor  of  iiis  ranse.  And  yet  the  I'act  is,  that  ever}'' 
inipartial  reader  nui5t  see  that  lie  has  not  been  able,  in  regard  to 
anyone  point,  to  prodnce  a  sintrle  scripture,  decided  and  "home 
to  his  purpose.-'  Now,  if  Episcopacy  had  been  mennt  to  be 
taught  in  Scripture,  as  the  only  authorized  model  of  church 
order;  and  if  the  New  Testament  had  been  intended  to  be  a 
sine  guide  in  tliis  matter;  can  any  reflecting  man  believe  that 
the  inspired  writers  would  have  written  as  they  have  done  in 
relation  to  ecclesiastical  order?  We  will  venture  to  say,  it  is 
impossible  !  NN'lien  they  had  occasion  to  speak  so  frequently 
coticcrniugChristian  character  and  hope;  concerning  the  Church, 
iis  nature,  foundation,  head,  laws,  ministers,  and  interests;  it  is 
truly  marvellous,  if  they  had  thought  as  the  writer  of  this 
pamphlet  does,  that  they  shouid  iu)t  have  told  us  something 
more  explicit  respecting  "orders  of  clergy;"  the  mischiefs  of 
"parity  ;"  ihedanger  of  departure  from  the  regular  "succession;" 
and  the  fundamental  importance  of  ccuitending  for  an  "author- 
ized priesthood."  Had  their  opinions  been  those  of  the  author 
of  this  Tract,  they  cnidd  not  have  been  silent,  or  have  spoken 
douhi fully  respecting  these  points.  They  would  have  dwelt 
upon  them  in  every  coiniexion  ;  have  repeated  them  at  every 
turn  :  and  have  made  this  siihject  clear,  whatever  else  was  left 
in  the  dark.  Now,  as  it  is  granted,  on  all  sides,  that  they  have 
NOT  DONE  Tuis;  as  Episcopaliaus  themselves  acknowledge  that 
NO  ONE  of  the  inspired  writers  has  done  it,  or  is  at  all  explicit 
on  the  subject ;  it  is  as  plain  as  any  moral  demonstration  can  be, 
that  the  principles  and  claims  of  this  pamphlet  were  then 
tiiknown,  and,  consequently,  have  no  Divine  warrant. 


ANSWER 

TO    A 

REVIEW  OF  "EriSCOPACY  TESTED  BY  SCRIPTURE," 

In  the  Biblical  Repertory  Jot  April,   1635. 


Some  people  are  prompt,  and  some  lardy ;  the  same  with 
periodicals  ;  and  the  Biblical  Repertory  is  of  the  latter  class — 
perliaps  uiili  good  reason.  By  the  Biblical  Repertory  we  mean, 
of  course,  the  author  of  the  Review  before  us.  He  informs  us 
that  "copy  after  copy"  of  '"Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture" 
was  sent  iiim.  from  about  the  time  of  its  earliest  appearance,  yet 
witliout  waking  the  energies  of  his  tardy  pen  ;  nay  without  being 
honored  with  the  perusal  of  more  tiian  ''a  fourth,  or  a!  most,  a 
third  part  of  its  contents."  The  reason  was,  that  it  Cjintained 
nothing  with  wbich  he  was  not  "familiar."  At  length,  liowever, 
in  time  for  the  April  number  of  the  Repertory,  and  "  within 
twenty-four  hours"  of  the  moment  of  penning  his  third  para- 
graph, he  vouchsafes  it  "  a  cursory  perusal."  Why,  after  leaving 
it  so  long  unnoticed  and  unread,  say  some  four  j'ears,  why  did 
the  reviewer  at  length  examine  its  pages,  and  even  bend  his 
powers  to  the  labor  of  a  reply?  He  informs  us  that  it  was 
because  "  the  voice  of  exultation  over  its  supposed  unanswerable 
character  seems  to  be,  in  tlie  Episcopal  camfi,  waxing  louder  and 
louder,"  and  because  "some  of  the  less  informed  of  [his]  friends 
may  misapprehend  tiie  reason  of  [his]  silence."  Only  the  "  less 
informed,"  be  it  noticed  ;  the  Biblical  Repertory,  a  thick  and 
handsome  Quarterly,  is  tlie  vehicle  of  communication  with  the 
'•  kss  informed"  of  the  Presbyterians !  One  might  have  sup- 
posed that  the  columns  of  one  of  their  religious  newspapers 
would  be  th^  more  appropriate  channel.  Mark  also  the  words, 
"  misapprehend  the  reason  of  our  silence;"  tlie  silence  of  this 
individual  reviewer,  for  the  Tract  had  been  reviewed  a  year 
before,  in  tlie  Christian  Spectator.  Such  language,  under  such 
circumstances,  indicates  that  this  writer  understood  that  himself 
was  looked  to,  by  more  or  fewer  of  the  Christian  public,  whether 
"less"  or  better  "  informed,"  for  a  reply  to  this  Episcopal  essay. 
In  other  words,  wtiile  the  reviewer,  for  himself,  deemed  tiie 
Trad,  for  four  years,  unworthy  of  notice,  there  were  those  whose 
judgment,  either  made  known  to  him  or  taken  for  granted, 
constrained  him  at  length  to  give  his  well-trained  faculties 
("familiar"  with  llie  whole  subject)  to  the  task,  and  to  issue 
Jiis  production  in  one  of  the  choicest  Presbyterian  periodicals. 
If  the  auiiior  of  the  Tract  were  vain  of  it,  he  would  not  covet  a 
greater  compliment. 

20  (  229  ) 


230  ANSWER   TO    A    THIRD    REVIEW    OF 

After  extracting  from  the  Review  such  a  compliment,  and 
with  the  more  direct  compliments  there  given  us,  it  may  seem 
unkind  to  say  that  tiie  lone  of  tlie  reviewer  is  that  rather  of 
a  declainier  than  of  a  reasoner.  But  as  "less-informed"  per- 
sons are  ofien  caught  by  positive  language,  and  insinuations 
against  the  parties  opposed,  it  is  our  duly  to  say,  that  this 
posiliveness  and  these  insinuations  abound  in  the  production 
before  us.  Let  our  timid  readers  then  bear  in  mind,  tliat  it  is 
easy  to  say  tliat  no  man  of  sense  thinks  as  EpiscopaHans  do,  and 
tliat  our  oi)inions  have  no  countenance  wluitever  in  the  holy- 
volume;  let  them  be  informed,  that  men  wlio  reason  are  apt  to 
regard  such  sayings,  except  as  tliey  occasionally  escape  an 
ardent  debater,  as  mere  sound,  a  lordly  kind  of  scolding,  resorted 
to  when  arguments  are  scai'ce,  or  when  tiie  current  of  argument- 
ation is  becoming  stagnant.  The  author  of  the  Tract,  says  tiie 
reviewer,  is  under  '•  the  wonderful  sway  of  prejudice'''' — certain 
of  his  inferences  "  would  be  driven  away  from  any  enlightened 
and  impartial  tribunal  on  eartli :  "  again,  "  we  confidently  assert 
that  there  is  no  authority  whatever  in  the  Word  of  God"  for 
bisiiops  proper;  the  claim  of  deacons  to  be  clergymen,  "lias  no 
foundation  whatever  in  the  Word  of  God:"  if  this  claim  ''  had 
not  been  actually  advanced,  it  would  never  have  occurred  to  us 
as  possible  that  it  siiould  enter  the  mind  of  any  thinking-  man  :  " 
again,  "the  claim  advanced  in  behalf  of  Andronicus  and  Junia 
[or  Junias]  as  apostles,  is  not  only  unfounded,  but  really  border- 
ing on  the  ridiculous ;''^  yes,  "ridiculous,"  althoiigii  that  claim 
is  allowed  by  Calvin,  by  Diodati,  by  Aretius,  by  others  in  Poole's 
Synopsis,  and  is  regarded  as  of  equal  probability,  or  more 
than  equal,  with  the  other  construclion,  by  Hammond  *  and 
Macknight;  yet  adds  the  reviewer,  the  contrary  "is  the  general 
interpretation  of  intelligent  and  impartial  com  nentators:" 
again,  "  the  manner  in  which  Bishop  Onderdonk  undertakes  to 

dispof!e  of  the  plain   record is  one  of  the  most  singular 

examples  of  evasion  and  w.anagement  that  we  remember  eVer 
to  have  seen:"  again,  tiie  opinion  that  -irpsofivTtfiiov  in  1  Timothy, 
means  office,  the  presbyterate,  is  "fanciful  and  ridiculous :''^  the 
word  seems  a  favorite  one,  "ridiculous;"  though  the  opinion 
has,  in  the  Tract,  the  names  of  Jerome  and  Ambrose,  of  Calvin  | 
and  Grotius,  and,  in  the  Answer  to  Mr.  Barnes'  second  Review, 


*  Hammond  allows  this  absolutely,  on  John  xx.  21,  note  b.  We  here  specify  for 
this  opinion,  Menocliius,  Tirinus,  Estius,  VorstiiiP,  and  Parajns ;  see  Poole's 
Synopsis.  Add  also.  Parkhnrst  and  Wolfius,  and  Whitby,  as  we  understand  him; 
wiio  cites  Chrysoslom  and  Tlieodoret. 

t  'Die  objection  is  repeated  by  this  reviewor,  that  Calvin  held  a  different  view 
afterward.  Not  exactly  true  ;  but  if  it  were,  he  still  allowed  this  one  to  be  reason- 
able. Dr.  Bowden  made  this  reply  long  ago,  as  the  reviewer  sliould  have  known. 
See  also  our  second  Answer  to  Mr.  Barnes.  Dr.  Cooke,  we  now  observe,  has 
answered  still  more  effectually.  (Essay,  p.  175;  Answer,  p.  21.)  The  Institutes^ 
in  which  Calvin  made  diis  concession,  were  first  published  before  his  Commentary, 
in  wliich  he  partly  revokes  it ;  b\it  sticcessii'e  eiiitions  of  the  former,  still  making 
the  concession,  were  published  till  "  fve  years  before  he  died." 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  231 

those  of  a  ho&t  besides:  yet  again,  speaking  of  Bishop  Onder- 
donk's  arguments  at  large,  "our  only  wonder  is,  that  lie  does 
noi  see  tliein  to  be,  botii  in  their  individual  import,  and  in  their 
combined  character,  destitute  of  even  the  sei'iblaiice  of  force;" 
in  [)lniner  terins,  the  reviewer  wonders  that  Bishop  Onderdonk 
'■  does  not  see"  himself  to  be  without  '•  even  the  semblance"  of 
common  understanding. 

Such  is  the  tone — we  could  make  other  extracts  of  the  same 
kind — of  tills  Review,  in  a  periodical  "conducted  by  an  Associa- 
tion of  Gentlemen  in  Princeton." 

x\nother  feature  of  this  Review  is,  that  it  creates  men  of  straw, 
ficlitiuits  arguments,  in  the  demolition  of  which  the  "  less- 
iiiformed  "  readers  will  be  apt  to  tliiuk  that  the  arguments  of  the 
Tract  are  demolished.  1.  It  is  said,  that  the  Tract  professes  to 
'' demouslnile  from  Scripture,'^  that  the  name  bishop,  given  in 
Scripture  to  presbyters,  was  appropriated  afterward  to  bishops 
proper:  and  in  conformity  with  ih\s  fiction,  the  reviewer  exults 
when  he  proclaims  that  this  appropriation  was  proved,  not  from 
Scripture,  but  from  "one  of  the  fathers."  Now,  who  ever  ex- 
pected to  prove  from  the  New  Testament,  an  occurrence  which 
did  not  take  place  till  after  its  books  were  written  i  Or,  who,  but 
the  reviewer,  deems  this  change  of  a  name  the  "  principal  link 
in  the  chain  of  proofs,"  or  even  an  integral  part  of  the  scriptural 
discussion  of  Episcopacy?  We  pioved  the  recognition  of  the 
first  order  in  that  volume,  without  reference  to  its  designation  : 
that  is  the  scriptural  proof  of  the  only  important  point.  How 
or  wlien  that  order  came  by  the  name  of  bishop,  is  a  mere 
affair  of  history  :  and  as  historical  authority  for  the  change,  we 
adduced  the  declaration  of  Theodoret;  and  also  the  concession 
of  Videlins,  a  learned  Non-episcopalian,  that  it  was  as  early  as 
the  time  of  Clement  of  Rome.  Does  the  reviewer  contradict 
this  authority?  by  no  means.  He  only  contends  that  we  ought 
to  find  Scripture  —  for  what?  for  an  event  yet  future  when 
Scripture  was  written;  in  other  words,  a.  prophecy — a  prophecy 
of  what?  of  a  mere  change  of  name!  A  worthy  subject  of 
prophecy,  indeed!  He  urges,  however,  that  it  related  to  "a 
matter  of  so  much  importance"  —  importance!  we  migiit  as 
well  ask  the  Romanists  to  give  us  a  scriptural  prophecy  that  the 
bishop  of  Rome  would  acquire  the  iinnie  of  Pope. 

2.  It  is  alleged  that  the  Tract  maintains  that  "the  apostles 
alone,  while  they  lived,  were  invested  with  the  power  of  ordi- 
nation," "and  that  when  their  nnn\s\ry  terminated,  they/c/?" 
their  rank  and  rights  to  "their  successors:"  to  demolish  this 
ellitry  of  liis  own  creation,  the  reviewer  reidies  that "  Timothy ,  and 
Titus,  and  Barnabas  ail  ordained,  and  yet  they  were  none  of  them 
apostles,  in  the  appropriate  sense  of  that  title."  Now,  the  'i'ract 
affirmed  that  these  three  ordained,  or  had  the  power  to  do  so, 
while  most  of  the  apostles  were  living;  as  also  tiie  seven 
"angels,"  while  St.  John  was  living.  While  any  of  the  tliirleen 
original  Apostles  were  on  the  earth,  these  and  others  were  their 


232  ANSWER    TO    A    THIRD    REVIEW    OF 

official  compeers;  wlien  they  died,  these  and  others  were  theif 
successors,  as  coming  after  them — in  tlie  other  sense,  their 
succession  in  sacerdotal  standing  was  from  tiie  time  they  were 
set  apart  respectively  to  tlieir  high  office.  The  Tract  did  not 
confine  ordaining  to  those  called  apostles  in  Scripture;  for  it 
ascribed  that  function  to  Titus  and  ttie  seven  "angels,"  wlio  are 
not  so  designated :  it  ascribed  it  to  the  Apostles,  and  to  certain 
other  individuals,  not  mere  elders.  May  we  not  ask  the 
reviewer,  "  What  does  your  [fictitious]  arguing  reprove?" 

3.  Some  strength  of  the  reviewer,  with  the  aid  of  the  mighty 
name  of  Barrow,  is  expended  on  the  proposition,  that  the 
extraordinary,  miraculous,  and  special  powers  and  duties  of 
the  Apostles  proper,  were  not  committed  to  successors.  Wiio 
said  tiiey  were  ?  not  the  Tract  certainly ;  nor  any  Episco[)a- 
lian  we  ever  heard  of.  And  what  furtiier  proposition  does  tlie 
reviewer  superinduce  upon  this  argument  of  straw  ?  just  this — 
"But" — O  yes,  the  Presbyterian,  as  well  as  the  Episcopalian, 
has  something  to  save  out  of  the  smoke  of  this  blank  volley — 

"  But,  considering  the  Apostles  as  ministers  q/' Christ 

they  had  successors."  What  an  example  of  much  ado  about 
nothing! — of  making  a  speech,  and  ending  at  tlie  point  started 
from  !  Neither  party  claims  succession  to  the  extraordinary 
functions  of  the  thirteen  ;  but  both  claim  succession  to  them  as 
ministers  of  Christ."  All  this  was  known  before.  The  true 
questions  were,  What  sort  or  grade  of  "  ministers"  succeeded  to 
the  apostolic  ministerial  office  ?  and,  Was  the  superiority  of  the 
Apostles  to  the  elders  an  extraordinary  and  transient  arrange- 
ment, or  a  permanent  one  in  the  Church  ?  To  a  solution  of 
these  questions,  tiiis  part  of  the  labor  of  the  reviewer  brings  us 
no  nearer.  The  "  less  informed"  may  indeed  be  carried  away 
with  the  torrent  of  his  argument  against  a  shadow,  and  may 
imagine  tliat  because  no  extraor-dinary  apostolical  distinctions 
have  descended,  there  is  no  basis  for  Episcopacy ;  but  this  class 
of  readers  are  beginning  to  be  better  "  informed." 

4.  The  reviewer,  as  also  did  Mr.  Barnes,  adverts  to  the  "post- 
scripts "  to  the  second  epistle  to  Timothy,  and  to  that  to  Titus, 
"  which  speak  of  their  being  bishops,"  and  very  gravely  and 
learnedly  declares  them  to  be  spurious:  true — what  then?  did 
the  Tract  refer  to  them  ?  no:  does  any  Episcopalian  put  them 
into  the  scriptural  argument?  no:  does  any  Episcopalian  mean 
to  do  so?  no.  For  what  purpose  then  are  they  even  named  in 
this  controversy?  for  none,  that  we  can  perceive,  except  it  be 
to  make  a  display,  by  arguing  down  what  nobody  asserts. 

5.  On  the  word  "  evangelists,"  the  reviewer  offers  what  he 
deems  "conclusive  proof,  as  far  as  scriptural  authority  goes, 
that  the  title  has  no  reference  to  prelacy."  So  exactly  said  the 
Tract;  an  evangelist  might  be  either  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon; 
nay,  even  the  laity  "did  the  work  of  evangelizing;"  tlie  title 
did  not  imply  either  one  of  the  sacred  offices.  Why  "  prove," 
then,  that  it  "  has  no  reference  to  prelacy  ?"  why,  but  to  make 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BV    SCRIPTL'RE.  233 

a  short  of  proving  something,   in  an   argument  against  Epis- 
copacy I 

6.  On  a  qneslion  i.-f  his  own  raising  —  "  \Vi)y  may  not  Tiniu- 
tliy  and  'inns  have  been  Presbyterian  evangelists?" — il.c 
reviewer  says,  t!iai  ilie  anthor  ul"  the  'J'racl  ••  duuOlless  unl 
replij,  that  this  cannot  be,  because  none  but  prelates  ever  had 
the  power  of  ordaining."  An  easy  way  to  make  answers!  put 
wliat  argument  you  please  into  tiie  mouth  of  your  opponeiit, 
and  then,  assuming  it  to  be  his,  exclaim,  "Shall  we  never  have 
done  with  this  consiaiit  begging  of  the  question  in  dispute  /  ' 
Let  us  turn  about  tiiis  weather-cock  lugic.  Why  may  not 
'I'linolhy  and  'I'iius  liave  been  Episcopal  evangelists?  the 
reviewer  "  doubtless  will  reply,"  thai  tiiere  is  no  Episcopacy  m 
Scripture;  and  then  we,  in  turn,  will  "doubtless"  eciiohis 
rejoinder,  '•  Shall  we  never  have  done  with  this  constant  beg- 
ging of  the  questi(ni  ?"  Such  questions  and  answers  might  ije 
stereotyped,  with  Wank  spaces,  and  filled  up  for  any  coiiIk.- 
versy  on  any  subject.  We  say  that  Timothy  and  'lilus  w  t  re 
not  Presbyterian  evaiigelisis,  because  tiiere  is  no  scriptural  (n  i- 
deiice,  or  no  clear  evidence,  that  presbyters  ordained  ;  and  u  . 
scriptural  evidence  whatever,  that  presbyters  governed  pres>!;\- 
ters.  That  is  our  "reply;"  the  reviewer  has  ascribed  to  ll.-^  a 
fictitious  one.  And  we  see  no  rea-^on  for  his  doing  so,  but  to 
e.\hibit  to  his  "less-informed  friends"  his  prowess  in  knocking 
to  pieces  a  puppet  of  his  own  fabrication. 

And  now  we  submit  to  every  one  who  has  read  impartially 
the  'iVact,  and  this  Review  of  it,  whether  in  our  exposure  of  the 
ti^ne  of  the  latter,  in  regard  to  its  mere  bold  assertions  and  detract- 
ing insinuations,  and  of  its  wasted  valor  upon  arguments  whicii 
no  one  controverts,  or  which  no  one  offers,  we  iiave  not  taken  out 
the  larger  half  of  its  pith  and  substance  I  We  might  go  furtlier, 
and  ask  of  such  readers,  whetiier  the  reviewer  lias  weakened  ihe 
Tract  in  any  one  point  ?  But  as  this  might  be  deemed  an  imita- 
tion of  him  in  the  error  of  pojiiiveness,  we  must  reply  to  Ins 
reasoning,  such  as  it  is.  'J  his,  for  substance,  is  an  easy  work  ; 
but  as  brief  objections  often  require  long  answers,  we  tear  that 
\ve  sentence  ourselves  to  no  small  labor,  and  perhaps  our  readeis 
to  more  fatigue  than  may  be  acceptable  to  them,  it  is  a  mailer 
of  duty,  however,  and  we  therefore  do  not  shrink  from  the  ta.-k. 

In  the  tract,  '•  Episcopacy  'i'esled  by  Scripture,"  we  passed 
over  the  claims  of  (uir  deacons,  because  tiie  discussion  was 
unimportant,  as  compared  with  the  grand  one,  that  of  th- 
clanns  of  our  bishops.  IJut  the  reviewer  brings  them  into  tiis- 
di.'bate,  and  we  are  content  to  meet  him.  'i'hat  liierefoie  will, 
as  Willi  hi:n,  be  our  first  topic  ;  and  then  we  shall  take  iu  lia.'fd 
his  general  argument  against  ii^piscopacy. 

I.  The  reviewer  lakes  the  usual  jm; round,  that  deacons  were 
^/■s/ appoinied  when  "the  seven"  were  ordained,  m  Acts  vi.  ; 
and   that  their  [only]  duties  are  there  "  expiicilly  and  pluiuiy 
stated."     We  join  issue  with  liim  on  both  points. 
20* 


234  AN3WER    TO    A   THIRD    REVIEW    OF 

And  here  we  begin  with  the  remark,  that  "  the  seven "  are 
nowhere  in  Scripture  called  deacons — not  once.  The  purport 
of  this  remark  is,  that,  as  in  all  sound  reasoning,  we  are  not 
here  to  look  to  names,  but  to  things  or  facts.  Tliat  "the 
seven"  were  deacons,  we  neither  question  nor  doubt;  we  judge 
they  were  such,  not  from  the  name,  which  tliey  have  not  in 
Scripture,  but  from  their  functions.  If,  however,  we  can  find 
lliat  their  functions  were  exercised  by  olliers  before  them,  then 
we  say  that  such  ministers  as  "the  seven"  existed  previously  to 
the  appointment  of  these.  If  also  we  can  show,  that  when  the 
title  '"deacons"  does  occur  in  Scripture,  not  a  word  is  said  of 
their  "  serving  tables,"  we  think  we  shall  liave  a  strong  argu- 
ment that  that  could  not  have  been  the  oiili/  function  of  the 
ministers  who  had  this  official  designation.  The  passage  now 
before  us  is  this,  from  Acts  vi. 

And  in  those  days,  when  the  number  of  the  disciples  was  multiplied, 
there  arose  a  murmuring  of  the  Grecians  against  the  Hebrew?,  because 
their  widows  were  neglected  in  the  daily  ministration,  Siaxuvia.  Then 
the  twelve  called  the  multitude  of  the  disciples  unto  them,  and  said,  It  is 
7?o<  reason  that  we  should  leave  the  word  of  God  and  serve  (5iii(cov£:iv  tables. 
Wherefore,  brethren,  look  ye  out  from  among  you  seven  men  of  honest 
report,  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  wisdom,  whom  we  may  appoint 
over  this  busuiess.  But  we  will  give  ourselves  continually  to  prayer,  and 
to  the  ministry  SiuKovia  of  the  word.     *     »     *     ♦     ♦ 

Whom  they  set  before  the  Apostles  :  and  when  they  had  prayed,  they 
laid  their  hands  on  them. 

We  have  inserted  the  Greek  words,  that  it  may  be  seen  that 
they  are  not  used  in  the  appropriate  sense.  They  are  applied 
to  the  "daily  ministration,"  which  took  place  before  "the 
seven"  were  appointed;  to  the  "service"  which  the  twelve 
must  have  done  had  they  not  been  appointed ;  and  to  the 
"ministry  of  the  word  :"  in  the  two  former  clauses,  the  appro- 
priate sense  might  be  claimed,  were  it  not  tiiat  the  name  "  dea- 
con" does  not  yet  appear  to  have  been  given,  and  were  not  the 
expression,  at  its  third  occurrence  in  the  passage,  clearly  em- 
ployed in  the  more  general  signification.  It  is  plain,  therefore, 
that  "the  seven"  are  not  called  "deacons,"  even  by  impli- 
cation. 

It  is  commonly  supposed,  we  believe,  that  before  the  appoint- 
ment of  "  the  seven,"  the  Apostles  performed  the  office  of 
"serving  tables;"  but  this  we  deem  a  mistake.  They  agreed, 
that  "it  was  7iot  reasonable  for  them  to  leave  the  word,  and 
serve  tables."  Surely  it  was  just  as  unreasonable  for  them  to 
do  so  previously  as  subsequently — and  therefore  we  judge  there 
were  servants  of  tables  (whether  with  higher  functions  or  not) 
from  the  time  the  property  of  Christians  was  put  into  a  com- 
mon fund,  from  which  "distribution  was  made  to  every  one,  as 
he  had  need."  So  obvious  is  this  consideration,  that  Matthew 
Henry,  Doddridge,  and  T.  Scott,  allow  that  the  Apostles  had 
agents  for  this  work  before  this  period  ;  Bishop  Slack  thinks 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED   BY    SCRIPTURE.  233 

"the  ministration  was  left  at  large  ;"  and  IMosheim  says,  "  The 
Chiircli  was  undoubtedly  provided  from  the  beginning  with 
inferior  ministers,  or  deacons;  no  soeiety  can  be  witliout  its 
servants,  and  still  less  such  societies  as  those  of  the  first  Cliris- 
lians  were."  Here,  then,  is  our  first  reason  for  asserting  that 
tliere  were  such  functionaries  before  "the  seven:"  the  work 
was  extensive  from  the  first,  among  the  many  thousands  of 
converts,  not  a  few  of  wliom  must  have  been  supported  frou)  the 
general  fund;  and  tlie  Apostles  would  have  had  to  "leave 
the  word"  altogether,  had  they  disciiarged  this  lower  office, 
which  would  "not"  have  been  "  reasonal)le."  Our  next  argu- 
ment for  this  position  is,  that  had  the  "twelve"  given  their 
spare  time,  if  they  at  first  had  enough,  to  "  this  business,"  and 
yet  afterward  found  it  insufficient,  because  the  ntnnber  of  dis- 
ciples was  '•multiplied,"  and  still  multiplying,  they  would  have 
scarcely  appointed  only  ^^  seven"  persons  to  take  their  place: 
we  allov/  that  the  contrary  supposition  is  not  iuipossihle,  but  we 
submit  tiiat  it  is  improbal)le  ;  if  so,  it  is  just  as  probable  that 
there  were  previously  those,  not  apostles,  who  perform.ed  "  the 
daily  ministration"  of  "serving  tables."  Our  third  argumetit 
for  this  opinion  is,  that  it  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  the 
twelve  inspired  Apostles  would  "  neglect"  any  of  the  poor,  and 
particularly  that  they  would  be  guilty  of  "neglect"  with  a 
parti/  or  partial  aspect,  favoring  the  "  Hebrew  "  widows  to  the 
injury  of  tiie  "Grecian"  —  the  home-born  Jewish  Cliristian^ 
rather  than  the  foreign  of  Jewish  descent.  True,  some  com-- 
menlators  allege  that  the  "murmur"  was  unjust;  but  the  holy 
record  says  no  such  thing;  and  ttie  Apostles  allow  its  justice  in 
providing  a  remedy  for  the  "neglect."  We  repeat,  then,  that 
the  previous  "ministration;"  and  the  "negligent"  manner  of 
fulfilling  it,  are  to  be  ascribed  to  other  agents  than  the  Apostles. 

'J'he  only  seeming  objection  to  this  view  of  the  case,  is  the 
expression  "but  we  will  give  ourselves  continualbj  io  prayer, 
and  the  ministry  of  the  word."  This,  we  say,  is  but  an  objec- 
tion in  appearance,  for  it  means  no  more  than  "  we  will  per- 
severe in  constant  attention  to  these  duties."  It  does  not  im|)ly 
that  the  Apostles  had  previously  given  but  a  partial  attentiou  to 
them.  We  are  not  certain  but  we  are  honored  with  the  concur- 
rence of  the  reviewer  on  this  point — he  argues  "that  the  Apos- 
tles considered  the  duties  of  this  office  as  of  such  a  nature, 
that  their  umlertaking  to  fulfil  them,  would  compel  them  to 
leave  preaching,  and  devote  themselves  to  the  care  of  money 
tables."  We  suppose  he  means  that  they  had  at  no  time  ful- 
filled "this  office;"  his  argument  is  decidedly  to  that  effccl. 

It  follows,  we  think,  from  this  course  of  reasoning,  that  "  the 
seven"  were  ap|)oi!ited  to  niak(;  up  \.\\q  deficiency  \\\  the  number 
of  the  functionaries  who,  till  now,  liad  "served  the  tai)les" — 
and  particularly  to  meet  the  claims  of  the  "(Jrecian"  poor. 
Accordingly  Mosheim,  after  mentioning  the  earlier  "deacons," 
adds — "  These  first  deacons  u[  the  Church,  being  cho»en  from 


236  ANSWER    TO    A    THIRD    REVIEW    OF 

amono;  the  Jews  who  were  born  in  Palestine,  were  suspected 
by  the  foreign  Jews  of  parllnlity  in  distribiiUng  the  offerings, 
wliidi  were  presented  for  the  support  of  the  poor.  To  remedy, 
therefore,  this  disorder,  seven  other  deacons  were  ehosen  by 
order  of  the  Apostles,  and  employed  in  tlie  service  of  that  part 
of  the  churcli  at  Jerusalem  which  was  composed  of  the  foreign 
Jews,  converted  to  Christianity.  Of  these  new  ministers,  six 
were  foreigners,  as  appears  by  their  names;  the  sevenlli  was 
chosen  out  of  the  proselyte-;,  of  whcMii  there  were  a  certain 
number  among  the  first  Christians  at  Jerusalem,  and  to  wliora 
it  was  reasonable  that  some  regard  should  be  sliovvn  in  the 
election  of  the  deacons,  as  well  as  to  the  foreign  Jews."  This 
view  of  the  affair  of  the  deacons  is  just  and  probable  every  way. 
It  was  not  a  general  "neglect"  that  was  complained  of,  but  a 
party  one,  or  partiality  ;  of  which  the  Apostles  could  not  have 
been  guilty,  but  only  their  agents ;  and  such  other  agents  were 
appoiiited  as  would  remedy  this  evil  precisely.  Among  "the 
seven"  there  does  not  appear  to  have  been  one  native  "  Hebrew," 
an  omission  which,  without  the  construction  before  us,  would 
have  invited  a  "  murmur"  from  the  party  before  favored.  The 
number  of  disciples  v/as  great — three  thousand  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost — five  thousand  soon  afterward — tiien  "  muhitudes 
of  men  and  women"  added — 'then  the  number  "multiplied:" 
add  to  these  facts,  that  large  suaxs  were  contributed,  and  that 
the  "  ministration"  of  them  was  extensive,  and  it  will  scarcely 
be  denied  that  "seven"  men  were  not  enough  to  superintend 
minutely  their  distribution.  We  again  affirm,  therefore,  that 
others  besides  "  the  seven  "  must  have  performed  that  function 
before  them. 

One  corollary  to  this  conclusion  is,  that  if  "the  seven"  were 
deacons  because  they  "served  tables,"  these  others  were  dea- 
cons for  the  same  reason.  And  thus  the  first  institution  of  this 
office  is  not  found  in  the  chapter  beiore  us. 

A  furtlier  corollary  is,  that  as  "the  seven"  were  ordained, 
those  who  were  deacons  before  them  must  have  had  a  similar 
or  an  equivalent  setting  apart.  Strange  would  it  have  been,  to 
have  one  portion  of  these  officers  solemnly  dedicated  to  their 
work,  when  the  other  portion  had  been  left  without  any  such 
honor.  Ill  calculated  would  it  have  been  to  allay  party  "  mur- 
muring," to  have  the  deacons  for  the  Grecians  ordained,  when 
those  for  the  Hebrews  had  received  no  separation.  The  pre- 
sumption, then,  the  strong  presumption,  without  a  particle  of 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  is,  that  tiie  earlier  deacons  were 
solemnly  commissioned  to  tlieir  station  in  the  Church.  If  the 
Apostles  did  not  conduct  previously  this  "  ministration,"  which 
it  seems  clear  they  did  not — if  others  had  acted,  under  their 
general  superintendence,  in  discharging  it — then,  whatever  rea- 
sons existed  for  setting  apart  "  the  seven  "  to  discharge  it,  under 
their  continued  supervision,  the  same  reasons  must  have  required 
the  former  agents  also  to  be  men  set  apart  to  the  office. 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  237 

And  now,  this  portion  of  our  argument  advances  rapidly. 
Tli'r're  were  already,  before  "the  seven"  were  ordained,  men 
who  had  the  same  right  to  be  called  deacons  that  tliey  liad. 
Tliese  men  were  also  ordained,  or  set  apart,  or  solemnly 
commissioned.  Wiio  were  these  men  ?  Nothing  is  intimated 
of  such  an  ordination  in  the  previous  chapters  of  the  Acts.  But 
liiere  is  a  yet  earlier  record  of  a  sacred  commission  given  to 
olliers  than  the  twelve  Apostles:  it  is  found  in  Luke  x.  ;  where 
it  is  declared  that  "the  seventy"  were  "appointed,"  and  sent 
forth  to  proclaim  the  Gospel,  and  tiiat  they  "  returned  "  from 
their  mission.  What  became  of  them  after  their  return?  Not 
a  word  more  is  expticitly  rt^corded  concerninu  them.  Are  we 
to  infer  tlien  that  ihey  abandoned  their  sacred  calling,  and  did 
nothing  further  in  their  ministry?  Are  we  to  suppose  that 
they  are  really,  as  well  as  apparently,  out  of  sight,  in  the 
subsequent  parts  of  the  inspired  history  ?  Or  shah  we  ratlier 
presume,  that  some  of  these  commissioned  men  were  the  deacons 
who  ofRciated  before  "  the  seven  "  were  ordained  ?  To  us,  this 
presumption  appears  probable  in  the  iiighest  degree.  Indeed, 
the  alternative  is,  to  suppose  a  previous  ordination  by  the 
Apostles,  not  hinted  at,  or  to  allow  that  some  of  these,  known  to 
have  been  set  apart,  were  the  functionaries  we  are  in  quest  of. 
We  are  aware  that  very  many  ordinations  must  liave  taken 
place  which  are  not  recorded,  and  that  this  act  at  the  hands  of 
the  Apostles  may,  without  inconsistency,  be  supposcid  of  these 
earlies-l  deacons.  But  we  submit  that  the  sn[)posiiion  is  needless, 
v/lien  we  find  so  large  a  number  of  men  already  ordained  or 
"  appointed  "  by  the  .Saviour. 

Our  Presbyterian  brethren,  of  course,  make  here  the  usual 
objections.  Deacons,  they  allege,  were  not  empowered  to 
preach,  as  "  the  seventy  "  were ;  and  therefore  "  the  seven  " 
and  "the  seventy"  could  not  have  held  the  same  office.  This 
furtiier  topic  we  now  present  to  tlie  reader. 

And  we  first  ask,  Why  were  deacons  ordained  at  all,  if  they 
3??/y  "  served  taljles,"'  if  they  were  mere  treasurers  and  almon- 
ers? and  why  ordained  by  llie  Apostles?  These  functions  are 
quite  common  in  various  departments  of  society.  Vast  num- 
bers of  persons  are  constantly  intrusted  with  the  money  of 
others — clerks,  agents,  apprentices,  servants,  the  porters  of 
counting-houses — with  large  sums.  What  is  there  in  such  a 
trust  to' make  it  probable  that  apostolic  ordination  would  be 
required,  when  the  trust  related  to  the  funds  of  the  Church  ? 
Who  thinks  of  a  formal  induction  into  such  a  trust,  in  any  other 
case? — except,  perhaps,  in  some  associations,  wlii^re  it  is  done 
merely  for  parade — which  of  course  is  no  aiialoizy  to  be  applied 
to  chiircli  alfairs.  All  an;ilogy  is  atxaiiiHt.  the  notion  that  men 
should  be  ordained,  w^lien  the  one  function  is,  to  have  charge  of 
money  and  tlie  poor.  The  presum|)live  argument  is,  then,  that 
"the  seven,"  when  ordained,  were  7io<  ordained  for  this  business 
al6ne,  but  also  for  other  duties,  such  as  would  correspond  in 


83&  ANSWER   TO   A   THIRD    REVIEW    OF 

saoredness,  with  that  of  the  very  high  solemnity  with  which 
tliey  were  set  apnrt. 

Nor  are  we  vvitlioiit  sufficient  intimations  of  these  further 
duties.  VVlien  "deacons"  are  raeiuioned  in  Scripture  by  that 
tille,  in  1  Tun.  iii.,  not  a  word  is  said  of  their  havui"  cliarge  of 
iniiney  and  t  le  poor — not  a  hint  of  the  son  is  given  :  it  is  pro- 
bable that  this  pari  of  iheir  oilice  became  much  less  important, 
wlien  tlie  large  contributions  to  tiie  Churcli  ceased  to  be  made  j 
and  were  it  not  for  the  case  of  "  ihe  seven,"  who  yet  have  not 
the  title,  no  one  would  apply  such  a  key  to  the  recital  in  that 
chapter,  of  the  qualifications  they  siionld  possess.  On  the 
contrary,  the  passage  implies  that  they  were  an  inferior  grade 
of  clergijinea.  Let  us  examine  the  proofs  of  this  assertion, 
1.  They  were  required  to  "hold  the  mystery  of  the  faith  in  a 
pure  conscience:"  on  which  qualification  MackniglU  says,  and 
refers  also  to  Beza — "  Soundness  in  the  faith  being  required  in 
deacons,  it  is  a  presumption  that  ihey  were  sometimes  em- 
ployed in  teaching ;  but  whetlier  by  preaching,  or  by  catechiz- 
ing is  hard  to  siy.  They  likewise  performed  tiie  office  of 
readers^  in  the  Churcli."  Doddridge  also  allows,  on  a  sub- 
sequent verse,  that  "it  is  liighly  probable  deacons  might 
freqiieatly  officiate  as  occasional  teachers  in  public  assenj- 
blies."  Sculietus  allows  this  function  of  deacons  more  expli- 
ciily.  (Poole's  Synopsis.)  2.  Tiiose  who  "  have  used  the  office 
of  a  deacon  well  purchase  to  themselves  a  gooddtgree.^^  Many 
Presbyterian  commentalors,  the  majority  of  those  now  within 
our  reach,  regard  this  "good  degree"  as  advancement  to  the 
pastoral  office.  Those  who  act  well  as  deacons,  may  expect  to 
be  promoted,  and  made  presbyter-bishops  :  no  exception  is 
made  or  hinied;  it  was  the  ride  that  worthy  deacons  should  be 
ordained  presbyters;  such  was  the  reward  of  their  fidelity,  as 
tlie  word  "purchase"  implies.  Is  there  such  a  rule,  or  such  a 
reward,  in  the  case  of  the  deacons  of  parity  ?  coidd.  there  be 
such  a  rule,  or  such  a  reward,  for  those  who  oidy  "  served 
tables?"  No;  the  idea  is  preposterous;  for  there  is  no  affinity 
between  suck  an  office  and  that  of  ministers  of  the  word  and 
sacraments;  men  may  excel,  and  may  improve  through  their 
whole  life,  in  the  stewardship  of  earthly  tlungs,  yet  be  totally 
unfit  to  be  stewards  of  things  heavenly.  An  ojfinily  then  there 
must  be,  between  the  functions  of  deacons  and  those  of  presby- 
ters, or  the  inspired  language  before  us  is  incongruous  and  void 
— there  must  be  that  in  "the  office  of  a  deacon,"  besides  his 
"serving  tables,"  wiiich,  if  duly  improved,  w'xWJit  him  for  "the 
office  of  a  [presbyter]  bishop."  In  other  words,  the  two  offices 
must  be  similar,  both  sacred,  and  concerning  sacred  functions; 
only  the  former  is  inferior  to  the  latter — in  what  particulars  we 
siiail  show  hereafter.*     We  add,  in  this  place,  a  coincidence  in 


*  Dr.  Campbell  says — "  The  deacons were  admitted  very  early,  probably 

in  tlie  time  of  the  Apostles,  to  an  inferior  part  in  the  sacred  ministry,  such'  as 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRiPTlJUE.  239 

phraseology  of  some  weight.  St.  Paul  says,  "If  any  man 
desire  ilie  office  of  a  [presbyter]  bishop,  he  desiretli  a  good 
kaXov  work;"  and  then,  as  if  to  point  to  tiiat  expression,  lie 
declares,  "  Tiiey  tliat  liave  used  the  office  of  a  deacon  well 
pnrcliase  to  themselves  a  g-ood  Ka\ov  degree" — the  passages  are 
translated  by  Macknight,  "  an  excellent  work,"  "  an  excellent 
degree."  ^V'e  submit  ilial  on  the  very  face  of  the  chapter,  the 
reference  of  the  latter  phrase  to  the  former  is  highly  prcibable. 
We  further  suggest,  that  the  expression  '■^  a  g-uod  work"  is 
regarded  by  commentators  as  very  emphatic;  and  the  Apostle 
would  hardly  use  the  same  empliaiic  word  within  a  few  verses, 
and  apply  it  to  the  encouragement  of  deacons,  unless  he  meant 
that  their  fidelity  would  entitle  them  to  a  share  in  the  "  good 
work"  of  presbyter-bishops.  The  deaconship  then  was  the 
first  "degree"  in  the  same  sacred  office  of  which  presbytership 
was  the  second  "  degree."  3.  It  is  further  declared  by  St.  Paul, 
that  those  who  "  have  used  the  othce  of  a  deacon  well  purchase 
to  themselves  [or  obtain]  great  boldness  in  the  faith  which  is  in 
Christ  Jesus."  This  is  interpreted  by  Macknight,  "  great  cour- 
age in  teaching  the  Christian  faith;"  implyuig  that  teaching 
the  faith  was  an  employment  of  deacons,  as  such.  And  this  is 
the  true  meaning.  For,  why  should  the  mere  servants  of  tables 
acquire  more  '-boldness  in  the  faith"  than  the  other  laity? 
Tlie  language  evidently  imports  that  deacons  were  (officially 
connected  with  the  Christian  faith,  were  officially  occupied  in 
studying  it,  as  theologians  by  profession,  and  were  officially 
pledged  to  declare  and  maintain  it.  If  it  be  objected,  that  their 
acquirmg  this  boldness  and  confidence  in  preaching,  may  mean 
their  having  such  a  quality  after  reaching  the  "good  degree"  of 
presbyters,  we  answer,  that  the  Apostle  speaks  of  it  as  pro- 
daced,  "  purchased,"  obtained,  by  "  using  the  office  of  a  deacon 
well:"  and  this  unavoidably  implies  that  declaring  the  faith 
was  part  of  that  office,  and  that,  by  disciiarging  this  branch  of 
the  office  with  fidelity,  deacons  became  such  proficients  as  t^  be 
able  to  discharge  the  same  duty  with  perfect  confidence  when 
the  time  of  their  promotion  should  come.  We  think,  then,  that 
the  inference  is  as  clear  as  any  deduced  from  the  Bible,  that 
the  scriptural  deacons  were  ministers  of  the  word,  yet  of  an 
inferior  grade,  and  preaching  with  less  "  boldness,"  with  less 
authority,  than  they  wtndd  when  advanced  to  be  presbyters; 
they  were  intrusted' v.-iih  the  Gospel,  but  not  fully  and  finally; 
their  powers,  in  this  respect,  were  equivalent  to  those  of  uur 
deacons,  who  preach  under  a  license  from  their  superior. 

On  the  principle  that  all  who  are  commissioned  to  preach 
'•'the  faitii,"  have  power  to  admit  men  to  tlie  visible  profession 
of  thai  faith,  by  baptizing  them — which  appears  a  sound  rule, 
and  indeed  to  follow  by  unavoidable  consequence — we  regard 


attending  the   pastors  in  the  discliarge  of  the  nligious  offices,  and  acting  under 
their  direclioii.     The  deaconship  served  in  fact  as  a  noviciate  to  the  ministry." 


240  ANSWER    TO    A    THIRD    REVIEW    OF 

the  account  of  deacons  given  b)?^  St.  Paul  as  including,  by  just 
inference,  their  riglit  to  administer  that  sacrament.  We  sup- 
pose that  it  is  allowed,  on  all  hands,  that  every  minister  of  the 
iJospel  may  baptize.  If  then  Paul's  description  maizes  deacons 
such  ministers,  tliey  have  tliat  power.  And  liiat  Paul  dues 
make  them  ministers  of  tlie  Gospel,  we  have  shown,  we  trust,  to 
be  a  moral  certainty. 

Tlie  only  objection  adduced  by  the  reviewer,  is,  that  it  is  not 
required,  in  this  passage,  that  deacons,  like  presbyter-bishops, 
b.;  "apt  to  teacli."  The  objection  is  of  no  force.  Tliey  were 
inferior  ministers,  as  yet  acquiring  their  aptness  to  teach,  tiieir 
•boldness"  in  declaring  the  faitti.  When,  as  deacons,  tliej' 
had  obtained  this  boldness,  then  they  were  "api  to  teacli,"  and 
prepared  for  promotion  to  the  "  good  degree,"  tiie  "good  work" 
of  presbyter-bishops. 

Let  us  now  bring  back  this  evidence  to  the  case  of  "the 
seventy."  We  suggested  the  probability  that  some  of  tliem 
W(;re  the  deacons  which  the  church  at  .Jerusalem  had  before 
•the  seven"  were  ordained.  Tlie  objection  was,  tliat  "  liie 
seventy  "  had  power  to  preach.  But  this  objection  we  have  now 
set  aside — deacons,  expressly  so  denominated,  had  power  to 
preach.  The  reader  will  of  course  bear  in  mind,  that  "  the 
seventy  "  not  being  called  deacons,  is  no  more  argument  against 
h  iving  liad  that  office,  than  tlie  same  fact  in  regard  to  "  the 
seven  "  is  argument  against  their  having  had  it — not  once  is  the 
appellation  "deacon"  given  to  them.  We  think,  therefore,  we 
have  offered  an  unexceptionable  statement  of  the  condition 
of  the  church  in  Jerusalem,  in  this  respect,  at  tiie  period  in 
question.  That  it  had  deacons  at  that  period,  is  every  way 
probable.  And  that  these  were  some  of  "  the  seventy,"  is  far 
more  probable  than  that  others  were  ordained,  when  there  were 
so  many  already  commissioned. 

Byt  it  will  be  further  objected,  that  "the  seventy"  could  not 
have  been  mere  deacons,  because  they  received  (Luke  x.)  the 
i«aine  powers,  and  were  to  perform  the  same  duties  with  those 
of  "  the  twelve,"  (Malt,  x.)  who  were,  it  is  alleged,  full  minis- 
ters of  the  Gospel  —  the  reviewer  appears  to  regard  both  as 
iiaving  the  same  commission.  The  re{)ly  to  this  objection  is 
easy.  The  ordinary  powers  first  bestowed  on  "  the  twelve," 
were  to  preach  and  baptize,  the  latter  being  inferred  from  the 
fict  that  they  did  so,  and  from  the  commission  to  proclaim 
"  tlie  khigdom  of  God,"  which  implies  the  right  to  admit  into 
that  kingdom  by  this  initiating  ordinance.*     The  same  ordinary 

*  This  commission  was  given  to  ttie  twelve  when  they  were  first  c?illed,  respect- 
ively, by  the  Saviour;  they  bajjlized  before  John  was  cast  into  prison.  (John  iii.  22; 
iv  2.)  The  account  tiierefore  in  Malt  x  .  and  the  parallel  places,  being  subsequent 
t.)  this  event,  refers  onlv  to  a  mission  on  which  they  were  sent,  and  a  charge 
c 'iicerning  its  fullilinent — and  also  to  their  endowment  with  miraculous  [lowers. 
It  is  a  recognition  of  the  ministerial  character  t)iey  already  possessed.  The  first 
call  of  several  of  the  twf^lve  is  mentioned  in  John  i.  35,  &c.  that  in  Matt.  iv.  18, 
«ti:.,  was  a  subsequent  one.  (See  Macknight.) 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCKIPTUKK.  241 

powers,  so  far  as  can  be  gathered  from  Ihe  Iioly  recorol,  were 
conlerred  on  "  llie  seventy."  Bui  after  the  first  coumiissioii  of 
'•the  twelve,"  and  about  tlie  time,  perhaps  just  before  "the 
seventy"  were  sent  forth,  the  former  received,  in  addUioa 
to  their  previous  investiture,  tlie  power  of  the  iveys,  (Malt,  xviii.) 
the  riglit  to  admit  to  communion,  or  reject  from  it ;  the  right  to 
declare  absohition,  or  refuse  to  do  so  —  wliich  included,  of 
course,  the  right  to  administer  the  eucharist,  recognised  as 
existing  in  "  the  twelve,"  at  tlie  first  celebration  of  that  sacra- 
ment. These  further  powers  ''  the  seventy  "  received  not,  as 
sucii  ;  they  did  not  receive  Ihem  from  the  .Saviour,  though  iliey 
may  liave  been  subsequently  promoted  to  lliis  "  good  degree  '' 
by  the  Apostles.  Here  then  we  have  a  body  of  niniisters,  com- 
missioned to  preach  and  baptize,  but  not  to  exercise  tlie 
power  of  the  keys — in  other  words,  an  inferior  grade  of  minis- 
ters [proper]  of  the  Gospel — ^just  such  as  "the  twelve"  had 
lately  been.  Tlieir  functions  corresj^ond  precisely  with  those 
we  have  detailed  from  St.  Paul,  in  the  epistle  to  Timotiiy  ; 
without  the  name,  their  office  is  that  of  the  "deacons"  there 
described.  And  thus  vanishes  the  last  objection  to  the  earliest 
deacons  at  Jerusalem  being  some  of  "the  seventy." 

Nay  more :  from  this  last  exposition,  we  gather  an  increased 
probability  that  such  was  the  fact.  This  body  of  ministers  were 
"appointed"  to  the  deaconship.  Is  it  to  be  supposed,  that  they 
renounced  their  work  when  tlieir  special  mission  ceased?  Is  it 
to  be  supposed  that,  when  the  Church  began  to  be  numerous,  and 
to  acquire  consistence,  and  was  in  need  of  services  in  their  par- 
ticular station,  they  had  all  deserted  their  Master  and  his  apostolic 
representatives,  their  superiors  ?  We  think  not.  Some  of  them 
may  have  been  dispersed  over  Judea,  as  part  of  the  "five  hundred 
brethren"  were,  when  only  "a  hmidred  and  twenty  "  were  left 
in  Jerusalem  ;  but  a  portion  of  them  were  doubtless  in  that 
city  —  on  the  spot — deacons,  ready  for  their  work;  but  of  the 
"Hebrew"  class,  which  made  it  expedient  to  choose  others,  for 
the  "  Grecians"  and  the  proselytes. 

In  the  fact  that  "the  seventy"  held  the  office  of  deacons, 
we  have  a  full  refutation  of  the  plea  that  Philip,  "  one  of  the 
seven,"  must  have  reached  a  higher  office  before  he  evangelized 
and  baptized.  The  "seventy"  evangelized  and  baptized,  with- 
out attaining  a  higher  office.  The  whole  evidence  in  regard  to 
Philip  is,  that  he  was  ordained  a  deacon,  and  tiiat  he  preached, 
and  administered  baptism  largely,  about  a  year  afterward,  and 
that  he  is  called  an  "evangelist"  some  twenty-six  years  after 
these  occurrences.  If  any  object,  that  by  this  time,  he  possibly 
liad  attained  the  "good  degree"  of  a  presbyter,  we  might  let 
it  pass,  except  tiiat  it  is  not  in  llie  record,  and  he  is  even  then 
called  "  one  of  the  seven."  *     But-  this  mere  possibility,  if  we 


*  Dr.  Canipl)ell  regarded  Ujo  office  of  evangelist  as  aa  extraordinary  one,  and 
supposed  it  niighl  be  held  by  one  whose  ordinary  office  was  that  of  a  dencon.     He 
21 


242  ANSWER    TO    A    THIHO   REVIEW    OF 

did  let  it  pass,  of  his  being  a  presbyter  at  the  very  late  period 
mentioned,  does  not  imply  a  probability  of  any  kind  or  degree, 
tliat  he  had  reached  that  grade  in  one  year  from  liis  ordiiiaiion 
as  deacon  :  for  such  an  allegation  we  ask  evidence  ;  but  there  is 
none.  We  affirm,  therefore,  tliat  so  far  as  appears  from  the  fads, 
without  any  presumption  or  probability  to  the  contrary,  Philip 
preached  and  baptized  as  a  deacon.  It  is  not  in  the  power  of 
man  to  give  any  other  scriptural  view  of  the  case. 

As  to  that  of  Stephen, we  do  not  read  that  he  baptized,  but 
neither  do  we  read  that  lie  actually  served  tables;  and  if  any 
allege  that  the  latter  is  probable,  from  the  context,  we  allege  that 
the  former  also  is  probable,  from  the  other  scriptural  consider- 
ations we  have  adduced.  All  that  is  recorded  of  him,  having 
reference  to  the  point  before  us,  is,  that  he  was  constanthj 
engaged  in  defending  the  Gospel  ;  that  lie  had,  as  a  deacon 
should  seek  to  have,  "great  boldness  in  [declaring]  Ihe  fnith 
which  is  in  Christ  Jesus'"  —  "This  man,"  said  his  enemies,  and 
though  they  were  "  false  witnesses,"  it  was  only  in  the  construc- 
tion of  his  preaching — "this  man  ceaseth  not  ov  -navtrat  to  speak 
blasphemous  words  against  this  holy  place,  and  the  law  :  for  we 
have  heard  him  say  that  this  Jesus  of  Nazareth  shall  destroy 
this  place,  and  shall  change  the  customs  (or  riles)  which  Moses 
delivered  us."  Does  this  account  agree  with  the  notii^n  that  the 
deacon  Stephen  was  a  mere  servant  of  tables?  He  proclaimed 
"  Jesds  of  Nazareth."  He  declared  the  very  important  doctrine 
of  the  passing  away  of  the  Mosaic  "customs  or  rites,"  by  tlieir 
fulfilment  in  the  Christian  dispensation.  He  "ceased  not"  to 
do  this.  The  reviewer  is  mistaken,  when  he  says  that  Stephen 
"simply  replied  to  those  who  'disputed'  with  him;"  he  evi- 
dently did  more,  he  made  the  defence  of  the  Gospel  his  business. 
Nay,  when  the  "disputers"  with  him  began,  Stephen  had  obvi- 
ously been  proclaiming  already  the  subjects  they  undertook  to 
"  dispute"  about;  he  had  already  been  proclaiming  Christianity, 
and  inculcating  the  evanescence  of  the  Levilical  ceremonies  ; 
t(»pics  which  belong  especially  to  authorized  teachers,  and  to 
them  exclusively  if  present  or  near  at  hand,  not  to  laymen. 
Here  surely,  then,  is  a  preaching  deacon,  if  there  ever  was  one. 
So  decidedly  does  this  appear,  that  Campbell  and  others  say  he 
was  an  evangelist;  but  without  a  particle  of  scriptural  authority 
— he  had  not  the  tide,  though,  like  "the  seventy,"  he  did  "the 
iDork  of  an  evangelist,"  and  that  most  earnestly  and  "boldiy," 
and  while  like  them,  he  was  officially  no  more  than  a  deacon. 
His  defence  before  "  the  council"  is  of  the  same  character. 

We  have  now  vindicated,  on  scriptural  grounds,  and  we  trust 
efTectually,  the  claims  of  our  deacons.     Our  argument  in  their 


says — "  Philip  is,  in  another  place,  but  at  a  later  period,  expressly  called  an  evan- 
gelist. Acts  xxi.  8.  It  is  wortliy  of  notice,  that  liis  office  of  deacon  is  there  also 
named,  that  we  may  not  confound  them,  or  ascribe  to  the  one  whit  belonged  to  iU% 
Qtliei."  We  adduce  this  extract,  as  corroborating  tlie  opinion  that  Philip  remained 
a  deacon  till  the  year  60  ;  when,  however,  he  was  also  an  "evangelist." 


EnSCOPACY    TESTED   BY    SCRIPTURE. 


243 


behalf,  is  not  indeed  so  perfect  a  demonstration,  as  tliat  in  the 
Tract  in  the  cause  of  our  hisliops.  Yet  we  deem  it  fully  sufTi- 
cieni.  The  grand  point  in  Episcopacy,  tlie  exclusive  rights  of 
the  first  order,  bemg  proved  hy  a  clear  induction,  what  we  have 
now  offered  is  an  ample  defence  of  the  subordinate  point,  tlie 
riijlus  of  the  third  order.  We  submit  it,  wiiliout  fear,  as  a 
complete  refutation  of  the  remarks  of  the  reviewer. 

Hefore  leaving  the  scriptural  topics  imder  this  head,  we  must 
exhibit  some  of  them  again,  brielly,  to  show  their  furtlier  results. 
AVe  have  seen  tiiat  "the  twelve"  had  at  first  the  riglit  only  to 
preach  and  baptize;  which  made  them  deacons  in  rffice^  accord- 
ing to  St.  Paul  s  standard,  though,  like  "  the  seven,"  without  the 
name:  there  being  as  yet  no  occasion,  they  did  not  act  as 
almoners;  or  rather,  if  fanciful,  it  is  nothing  worse,  to  allege 
that  this  diaconal  function  was  adumbrated  in  their  distributiufi 
the  provisions,  wlien  Jesus  fed  the  multitudes.  After  serving  \i\ 
tliis  lower  ministry,  "the  twelve"  received  the  power  of  the 
keys  ;  by  which  promotion,  they  attained  the  "  good  degree," 
anil  were  commissioned  to  the  "good  work,"  of  presbyter- 
bishops.  All  this  occurred  before  the  death  of  our  Lord.  After- 
ward, after  his  resurrection,  "the  eleven"  were  commissioned 
a  third  time;  Christ  "breathed"  on  them,  and  said,  "Receive 
the  Holy  Ghost;"  they  thus  obtained  a  further,  and  of  course, 
liigher  power  of  the  keys  ;  they  were  "  sent  "  by  Christ,  as  the 
Father  had  sent  him  ;  he  made  thcm^he  representatives  in  "all 
the  world,"  in  "all  nations,"  of  the  "power  given  unto  him  in 
heaven  and  in  earth  ;"  and  declared  he  would  be  "with"  them, 
with  them  and  their  successors,  "  always,  even  unto  the  end  of 
the  world;"  which  intimation  of  their  having  succes^sors  in 
office,  implies  their  power  to  create  them,  i.  e.  to  ordain  such 
ministers  as  themselves,  and  of  course  those  of  tiie  inferior 
grades.  This  third  commission  made  the  Apostles  more  llum 
they  were  before;  more  than  presbyter-bishops,  which  thry 
became  on  acquiring  their  first  power  of  the  keys  :  in  other 
words,  it  made  tiiem  apostle-bishops,  bishops  proper.  Here  then, 
in  the  facts  of  the  case  as  recorded  in  Scripture,  we  see  plainly 
the  three  orders  of  Episcopacy — the  aposiles  rose  to  their  full 
eminence  through  those  "  degrees  "  —  being  first  deacons  in  fimc- 
tion,  then  presbyters,  and  then  bishops.  And  here  we  are  happy 
to  fiiui  that  the  reviewer  agrees  with  us  in  fart.  We  claim  three 
successive  commissions  for  the  Apostles — he  allows  two.  lie 
speaks  of  the  first  "  commis-nion  given  by  our  Lord  to  the  twelve, 

and  afterward  to  the  seventy,"  and  says  that  it  "  includes 

what  belongs  to  every  minister  of  the  Gospel:  "  the  twelve  then, 
according  to  the  reviewer,  were  "ministers  of  the  Gospel"  by 
iheir  earliest  commission,  whatever  was  its  date.  He  speaks 
also,  in  the  paragraph  tiie  third  previous,  of  "ihe^/io/  coiiiuiis- 
sion  which  the  Saviour  gave  to  the;  Apostles,"  after  his  resur 
reclion,  and  which,  he  allows,  contains  the  pronnse  tliat  "is 
considered  as  pointing  to  the  ministerial  succession."     Plainly, 


244  ANSWER    TO    A    THIRD    REVIEW    OP 

then,  the  reviewer  being  judge,  we  have  two  sacred  commissions 
— and  two  commissions  imply  two  offices,  or  two  grades  of 
office:  what,  alas,  becomes  of  parity?  Two  commissions — the 
first  made  tiie  twelve  "  ministers  of  llie  Gospel  "  —  wliat  did  tiie 
second  make  the  eleven?  —  something  diffi^rent?  no;  they  con- 
tinued to  be  Christ's  "ministers"  —  something  less?  no;  they 
lost  no  power  they  had  received — it  follows  unavoidably,  that  it 
made  tbem  someihing  more!  The  first  commission  inducted 
them  into  the  ministry,  the  second  commission  inducted  them 
into  something  more  ;  in  oilier  words,  it  made  them  higher 
ministers  than  liie  first  did:  what  becomes  of  parity?  verily, 
slie  has  the  coup  de  grace  from  one  of  her  own  sons,  'i'wo 
commissions,  again — the  first  contained  no  promise  that  is  "con- 
sidered as  pointing  to  the  ministerial  succession,"  and  of  course 
implied  no  power  to  ordain  ;  the  second  does  c<mtain  that 
promise,  and  implies  that  power  ;  the  ordaining  function  then 
does  not  belong  to  the  lower  "ministers  of  the  Gospel,"'  but  only 
to  the  higher:  what  becomes  of  parity?  slain  already,  we  can 
only  add,  that  she  is  now  buried — and  both  at  the  hands  of  the 
reviewer !  This  done,  we  ask  him,  or  any  other  candid  investi- 
gator of  Scripture,  who  finds  there  the  two  commissions,  whether 
lie  does  not  rather  find  the  three  that  we  have  described — that 
to  an  office  equivalent  to  deaconship,  before  the  power  of  the 
keys  was  given  —  that  to  an  office  equivalent  to  presbytership, 
when  that  power  was  added  to  those  before  possessed — and  that 
to  an  office  equivalent  to  the  episcopate,  when  the  promise 
was  added,  "  which  is  considered  as  pointing  to  the  ministerial 
succession  ?" 

Another  result,  from  the  scriptural  topics  we  have  had  before 
us,  is  to  this  effect.  The  "  seventy"  were  ministers  without  the 
power  of  the  keys  ;  in  other  words,  they  held  the  office  of 
deacons,  as  defined  by  Paul.  About  tlie  time  they  Vv'ere  thus 
commissioned,  "the  twelve"  received  that  power;  in  other 
words,  they  were  advanced,  to  the  office  of  presbyters.  Here 
are  those  two  orders  existing  at  the  same  time,  during  our 
Lord's  personal  ministry.  Can  we  not  find  the  highest  order 
likewise,  at  that  period?  If  our  Saviour  declared  that  He  was 
"sent"  by  the  Father,  "rts"  himself  sent  the  Aposiles,  when 
he  gave  them  this  highest  office,  may  we  not  justly  regard 
him  as,  in  this  particular  sense,  as  well  as  generally,  the  chief 
minister  of  his  religion,  while  he  was  on  earth?  He  is  called 
*'  the  Apostle  of  our  profession,"  or  religion,  after  that  word  had 
obtained  iis  appropriate  meaning,  and  the  apostles  were  distin- 
guished from  the  elders :  is  it  then  a  mere  fancy  to  consider 
him  as  the  Apostle  distinctively,  while  "the  twelve"  were 
elders,  and  "the  seventy"  were  deacons?  In  point  of  fact,  he 
had  the  powers  thus  assigned  him  ;  is  it  not  fair,  then,  as 
a  matter  of  construction,  to  regard  him  at  the  time  mentioned, 
as  holding  those  powers  in  the  ej:-press  relation  to  his  Church 
of  its  chief  earthly  minister,  the  highest  of  the  three  orders? 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  24^ 

We  would  not  rest  any  part  of  the  proof  of  Episcopacy  on  tliis 
conslriiclion ;  but,  with  lliat  constitution  of  tlie  sacred  office 
oliierwise  proved,  we  deem  this  a  furliier  illustration  of  it,  and 
also  sufficient  evidence  that  it  existed,  in  its  enlireness,  during 
our  Lord's  personal  ministry.  With  this  threefold  arrangement 
of  the  Christian  priesthood,  carried  up  to  the  immediate  eye, 
and  direct  appointment  of  the  Saviour,  we  see  clearly  its  uni- 
formity and  unchangeableness.  Jesus  was  made  a  "priest" 
and  a  '•  high-priest"  after  the  order  of  Melchisedec,  when  the 
'■  voice  from  heaven"  proclaimed,  "Thou  art  my  beloved  Sou." 
Holding  thus  the  supreme  commission,  he  gives  to  "  the  twelve," 
first,  the  lowest  one;  and  then,  promoting  them  to  the  middle 
grade,  he  completes  the  three  orders  by  substituting  for  ihem 
"  the  seventy."  Thus  commenced  the  "  bright  succession  " — 
and  liius  will  it  continue  "  through  all  the  courses  of  the  sun" — 
yes,  "always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 

AVe  like  the  scriptural  argument  It  is  always  satisfactory,  when 
fiiirly  and  adequately  conducted.  But  we  must  quit  it  now  for  a  few 
moments,  to  follow  the  reviewer  in  his  excursion  to  the  fathers,  for  matter 
auainst  our  deacons.  And  we  present  this  portion  of  our  remarks  in  a 
dilierent  type,  that  it  may  not  be  contbunded  with  the  rest  of  them. 

Hermas  is  the  reviewer's  first  authority,  v.diom  he  cites  thus — "Some 
were  set  over  inferior  functions  or  services,  being  intrusted  with  the  care 
of  the  poor  and  widows."  Let  us  read  the  same  passage  in  Arclibishop 
Wake's  translation,  "  Such  as  have  been  set  over  inferior  ministries,  and 
have  protected  the  poor  and  the  widows.'-  The  reviewer  seems  to  make 
the  care  of  the  indigent  the  only  kind  of  function  performed  by  deacons. 
But  the  other  translation  makes  that  care  one  among  other  "  ministries  " 
aj)pointed  them  —  and  even  the  reviewer's  version  admits  this  interpret- 
ation— so  that  deacons  were  not  regarded  by  ^Hermas  as  mere  servants 
of  tables. 

Origen  says  that  deacons  "  preside  over  the  money-tables  of  the 
Church" — he  blames  those  of  them  who  "do  not  manage  well"  "this 
business" — and  he  adds,  that  "we  arc  taught  in  the  Acts  "  that  deacons 
"  were  ajipoiiited  "to  "  this  function."  Who  doubts  all  this,  or  any  point 
of  it?     ttrigen  says  not  that  they  have  no  other  functions. 

Cyprian  speaks  of  a  deacon  who  was  '■  deposed  "  for  his  "  fraudulent 
and  sacrilegious  misapplication  of  the  Church's  money,"  and  for  with- 
holding the  "  pledges  deposited  with  him  "  by  "  widows  and  oq)hans  " — 
he  reirards  also,  says  the  reviewer,  the  transaction  in  Acts  vi.  as  \\\c  first 
appointment  of  deacons.  What  conclusion  do  these  citations  furnish  that 
deacons  had  no  other  function  than  the  care  of  the  poor !  Does  not  the 
reviewer  know  that  CypriaT says,  "  Tho.se  who  believed  in  Samaria  were 
bapti2ed  t)y  Philip  the  deacon?"  The  same  deacon  preached  to  them. 
(Ep.  73;  Potter,  218.) 

Ambrose,  [rather  the  commentary  ascribed  to  him,]  "speaking  of  the 
fourth  century,"  says,  "  The  deacons  do  not  publicly  prcarh  " — they  niight, 
however,  for  any  thing  that  the  reviewer  cites,  teach  in  their  suiwrdinate 
capacity.  But  it  is  to  be  noted,  that  Ambrose  speaks  of  this  state  of 
things  as  a.  change  from  the  former  one,  for  he  declares,  (Potter,  23li,) 
"  At  the  bei^inning  all  were  allov/ed  to  preach  (evangelizare  ;)  but  now  the 
deacons  do  not  preach  publicly  "  (in  populo  praedicant.)  This  writer  then 
is  in  our  favor. 

21* 


246  ANSWER   TO    A    THIRD    REVIEW    OF 

Chrysostam  says,  "  The  deacons  have  need  of  great  wisdom,  though  the 
preaching  of  the  Gospel  is  not  committed  to  them."  We  submit  that  this 
fiitlier  means  the  full  right  to  preach  the  Gospel :  otlierwise  why  mention, 
in  this  connexion,  the  "  great  wisdom  "  required  of  deacons  1  He  docs  not 
deny  their  subordinate  right  to  preach  or  instruct ;  liis  language  implies 
no  more  than  we  have  slated.  This  is  the  true  account  of  the  views  of 
Chrysostom,  as  we  learn  from  the  late  Dr.  Wilson,  who  says  (160)  that 
this  father  "  has  given  it  as  his  opinion  on  Acts  vi.,  that  the  commission 
was  of  a  special  nature,  and  thougli  tiieir  duties  were  in  the  first  instance 
ministerial,  yet  they  were  designed  to  be  preachers,  and  did  go  forth  as 
such." 

Jerome  calls  deacons  "  ministers  of  tables  and  widows  "  —  all  true — does 
he  deny  that  they  were  also  more  'I  No,  indeed.  The  reviewer  forgot  that 
this  father  said,  "  Without  the  bishop's  license,  neither  presbyter  nor  deacon 
[kis  a  right  to  baptize  ;  "  with  that  license,  both  may  do  it.  He  forgot  that 
Jerome  said,  "  It  is  the  custom  of  the  Church  for  bishops  to  go  and  invoke 
the  Holy  Spirit,  by  imposition  of  hands,  on  such  as  were  baptized  by 
presbyters  and  deacons,"  and  that  he  refers  to  "  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  " 
as  ills  authority.  He  forgot  that  Jerome  calls  presbyters  priests  of  the 
inferior  detrree,  and  deacons  the  third  degree"  of  priests.  (Cooke, 
§  1.51,  217.) 

The  Apostolical  Constitutions  forbid  "the  deacons  to  baptize,  or  admi- 
nisier  the  eucharist,  or  i)ronounce  the  greater  or  smaller  benedictions."  Not 
quite  accurate:  the  passage  forbids  a  deacon  to  "  ofler  "  or  consecrate  the 
euchari-:!,  ou  irpoo-^tpti ;  but  it  adds  that  when  the  bishop  or  presbyter  has 
"  offered,''  the  deacon  "  was  to  distribute  it  to  the  people,  not  as  a  i)riest,  but 
as  tlie  minister  of  the  priests."  Another  passage  speaks  of  the  bishop  or 
priest  as  distributing  the  bread,  and  the  deacons  following  with  the  cup: 
(  Potter,  "237  )  "  Let  the  deacon  take  the  cup,  and  delivering  it  let  him  say, 
'  The  blood  of  Christ,  the  cup  of  life.'  "  (Wilson,  282.)  As  to  the  prohi- 
bition to  bajitize,  if  it  be  not  understood,  "  without  the  bishop's  license,"  it 
is  at  variance  with  Cyprian  and  Jerome,  and  others  to  be  now  adduced,  and 
thus  it  was  a  mere  arbitrary  regulation,  not  founded  on  Scripture,  or  the 
earlier  rules  of  the  Church. 

This  is  all  the  reviewer  quotes  from  the  fathers;  and  it  amounts  to 
nothing,  either  through  intrinsic  insufficiency,  or  the  force  of  counter  state- 
ments, as  we  have  seen.  But  to  settle  the  point  fully,  we  shall  present 
more  of  this  kind  of  evidence  than  we  have  already  placed  in  the  scales 
against  our  learned  op])onent. 

Polvcarp  says  that  deacons  are  "ministers  of  God,  not  of  men  "  —  in 
other  words,  they  are  "  ordained  for  men  in  things  pertaining  to  God." 

liinatius  declares  that  deacons  are  "  intrusted  with  the  ministry  of  Jesus 
CuRisr;"'(Magn.  6.)  —  he  declares  that  they  are  "the  ministers  of  the 
mysteries  of  Jesus  Christ,"  and  that  "  they  are  not  the  ministers  of  meat 
and  drink,  [only,]  but  of  the  Church  of  God  " —  he  regards  those  who  "  do 
any  tiling  without  the  bishop,  and  presbyters,  and  deacons."  as  "  without 
tiie  altar:"  of  course,  deacons  belong  to  the  ''altar"  (Tral.  2,  7.)  —  he 
regards  deacons  as  "  appointed  according  to  the  mind  of  Jesus  Christ  ; " 
tiiev  belonged  to  the  ministry  as  modelled  by  our  Lo.-id  himself,  and  were 
not  first  invented  for  the  emergency  in  Acts  vi.  —  he  recommends  that 
"  some  deacon  "  he  ordained  to  visit  his  bereaved  Church  at  Antioch,  "  as 
the  ambassador  of  God  "  —  and  he  says,  "  Philo,  the  deacon  of  t'ilicia,  still 
mini.slers  unto  me  in  the  word  of  God."  (Philad.  Inscrip.  and  10,  11.) 
Let  these  deacons  be  compared  with  those  of  parity,  and  with  ours:  of  the 
former,  Ignatius  obviously  knew  nothing ;  with  the  latter,  he  was  familiar. 

Justin  Martyr  writes  —  "  Those  whom  we  call  deacons  give  to  each  of 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURnJ.  247 

those  who  are  present  a  jiortion  of  the  bread  which  hoth  hecn  Messed,  and 
of  the  trine  mixed  with  \v;iIit."   (Apol.  iSj.) 

Tertullian  declares,  "  The  higlifst  priest,  who  is  the  bishop,  has  llic  ri^ht 
of  baptizing.  After  him  tlie  presbyters  and  lieacuns,  not  liovvever  witiiout 
the  permission  of  the  bishop,  on  account  of  llie  honor  of  the  Churcii." 
•(Cooke,  §  1^3  ) 

Tlie  34tli  Apostolical  Canon  "ordains  that  the  bishop  have  authority 

over  the  possessions  of  tlie  Church so  that  on  his  authority  all  things 

may,  by  the  presbyters  and  deacons,  be  administered  to  the  poor."  (Prol. 
Epis.  V  3.  p.  383.)  Presbyters,  then,  were  servants  of  tables,  without  pre- 
ju(!ic<>  to  the  spiritual  part  of  their  functions.  The  same  of  course  may  be 
airirmcd  of  deacons.     Again  ;  the  71th  says,  "Let  a  bishop,  or  preshster, 

or  deacon,  engaginij  in  war be  deposed."     Why  might  not  a  deacon, 

if  but  a  lav  one,  such  as  those  of  parity,  take  a  commission,  and  "engage  in 
war  ]  "  The  prohibition  shows  the  full  sacredness  of  the  office  and  duties 
of  the  deacon  mentioned  in  these  Canons. 

The  (^o'lnu-il  of  Hliberis,  C  77,  —  "It  is  ordained  that  those  who  are 
baptized  by  a  deacon,  without  tlie  bishop  or  presbyter,  shall  afterward  be 
confirmed  by  the  bishop."  Again  :  "  Presbyters  and  deacons  are  forbid  to 
give  the  communion  to  those  who  had  grievously  offended,  without  the 
command  of  the  bishop."    (Schol.  Arm.  i.  !)'.).') 

The  Council  or  Synod  of  Ancyra  allowed,  tnat  deacons  who  lapsed  under 
persecution,  and  afterward  repented,  might  l)e  "received"  —  "hut  not 
again  to  administer  the  bread  or  the  cup,  or  to  preach  Krjpvaaciv." 
(Dr.  Wilson,  10-2.) 

The  sixth  general  Council,  called  Quinisextum,  (Can.  16,)  declared  tliat 
the  precedent  of  the  seven  deacons  "  did  not  aflect  the  nuniber  or  the  office 
of  the  deacons  who  ministered  in  the  mysteries,"  or  as  Slater  translates  it, 
(■201.)  "  at  the  altar  of  the  Churcii." 

We  have  now  adduced  evidence  enough  of  thi.=  sort,  to  overturn  all  that 
the  reviewer  has  brought  forward  :  probably  all  that  he  ever  can.  Wc  have 
shown  that  the  whole  voice  of  antiquity,  without  one  clear  exception, 
declares  the  deacons  to  be,  not  merely  servants  of  tables,  but  inferior  ministers 
of  the  word  and  ordinances. 

II.  We  proceed  to  the  general  argument  of  the  reviewer 
against  the  claims  of  Episcopacy,  as  Itiey  are  supported  in  llie 
Tract. 

Here  we  first  notice  the  remark,  that,  wliile  ice  affirm  the  word 
•'bishop,"  as  found  in  Scriiiture,  to  refer  to  [iresbyters  in  ail 
cases,  Dr.  Hammond  makes  both  "bishop"  and  "elder"  refer  lo 
bisiiops  proper  ;  and  supposes  llie  second  order,  presbylers,  to 
have  been  instituted  after  the  apostolic  age.  In  this  opinion,  we 
know  not  that  Dr.  Hammond  has  been  seconded  by  any  one. 
Nt'iiher  do  we  deem  bis  argimient  on  the  subject,  as  given  in  a 
Note  to  Acts  xi.,  either  conclusive  or  just.  1.  A  great  [lorlioii  of 
it,  if  not  the  greater  portion,  is  built  on  the  slippery  groiuid  of 
mere  names  of  office.  Thus,  bishop  and  elder  are  identified  in 
Titus  i.  ;  therefore  the  ciders  were  bishops  proper;  whereas  the 
inference  is  just  as  good,  that  the  bisiiops  were  elders  proper, 
'i'hus  again,  Clement  of  Rome  says  the  Apostles  orJaiued  some 
of  tlieir  first  converts  bishops  and  deacons  ;  erg'o,  they  ordained 
no  presbylers  ;  but  as  Clement  wrote  in  the  first  century,  his 
use  of  the  word  bishop  must  be  understood  as  in  Scripture. 


248  ANSWER    TO    A    TUIRD    REVIEW    OF 

2.  Because  Paul  and  Barnabas  brought  the  offerings  of  the 
Church  to  the  "elders"  in  Judea,  and  tlie  Apostolical  Canons 
assign  auliiority  over  the  church  properly  to  bishops,  Hani- 
mond  argues  that  these  elders  were  bisliops  proper.  But  were 
this  granted,  it  would  not  follow  that  there  were  no  presbyters 
in  Judea;  the  only  result  would  be,  that  "elders"  was  a  general 
designation  for  the  clergy,  including  all  the  orders,  as  appears  in 
other  passages :  the  same  remark  applies  to  the  extracts  wnicli  de- 
clare the  "  presbytery  "  in  1  Timothy  to  have  consisted  of  bishops. 
Besides  ;  if  the  aposiolical  canons  are  evidence  that  these  elders 
must  liave  been  bishops  proper,  to  entitle  them  to  receive  the 
church  property,  they  are  equal  evidence  that  the  "presbyters" 
of  whom  they  every  where  speak,  were  known  to  Scripture;  for, 
deny  tiiat  presbyters,  being  found  in  these  canons,  must  be 
found  also  in  the  New  Testament,  and  it  may  equally  be  denied, 
that  their  setting  forth  Episcopal  authority  over  the  sacred 
treasury,  is  a  proof  tliat  the  scriptural  elders,  having  charge  of 
it,  held  the  Episcopal  office :  the  reference,  therefore,  to  these 
canons,  either  establishes  the  inspired  institution  of  presbyters, 
or  else  renders  nugatory  the  allegation  that  the  elders  in  ques- 
tion were  bishops  proper;  and  whichever  of  these  be  the  result, 
it  is  fatal  to  Dr.  Hammond's  argument.  3.  The  only  explicit 
authorities  he  adduces,  are  Epiplianius,  of  the  fifth  century,  and 
the  Greek  Scholiasts.  The  former  says,  that  when  the  Apostles, 
'at  the  beginning  of  their  preacliing,"  found  "  those  that  were 
fit  for  it,  bishops  were  constituted  ;  but  while  there  was  no  mul- 
titude of  Cliristians,  there  were  found  none  among  them  to  be 
constituted  presbyters:"  but  these  latter  notions  are  fallacious; 
"multitudes"  were  usually  converted  in  every  place,  and  so 
there  was  a  fair  opportunity  to  select  presbyters;  and  that  per- 
sons fit  to  be  bishops  could  be  found,  and  none  fit  to  be  presby- 
ters, is  incredible  on  its  very  face.  In  a  subsequent  part  of  the 
note,  Epiphanius  is  quoted  for  "Timothy's  power  over  the 
presbyters.''''  The  other  authority  affirms,  "  Tiie  Apostle  left 
Titus  to  constitute  bishops,  having  first  made  him  bishop  ;"  and 
therefore  the  elders  mentioned  in  Titus  were  all  bishops  proper, 
none  of  them  presbyters:  but  this  conclusion  does  not  follow; 
it  satisfies  the  language  to  say,  that  the  Scholiasts  included  bolfi 
orders,  as  many  do,  under  the  appellation  "  bishops  "  or  "  elders." 
4.  The  rest  of  Hammond's  note  is  but  construing  the  sacred  and 
other  writers  according  to  his  theory. 

Against  this  theory  we  adduce  several  fatal  objections.  1.  We 
have  sliown  it  to  be  highly  probable,  far  more  probible  than 
the  theory  before  us,  that  "the  twelve"  were  presbyters  in 
fact,  thougii  without  the  name,  before  our  Lord's  death.  2.  It 
we  adliere  to  tiie  authorized  translation,  'elders  in  every 
church,"  (Acts  xiv.,)  there  were  several  in  each  church,  which 
is  inconsistent  with  the  idea  that  they  were  bishops.  3.  The 
elders  sent  for  from  Ephesus  are  called  "  the  elders  of  the 
church,"  (Acts  xx.,)  one  church   again,  with  many  elders,  a 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE.  249 

fact  irreconcileable  with  the  theory  of  their  episcopal  char- 
acter. 4.  When  Paul  and  liis  conijiany  were  received  by 
James  at  Jerusalem,  the  day  fullouing  their  arrival,  "  all 
the  elders  were  present;"  (Acts  xxi. ;  j  all  the  bisiiops  of 
Judea,  James  being  their  metropolitan,  argues  Dr.  Hammond: 
bui  is  it  credible,  lliat  all  the  bishops  of  all  Jiidea  cunld  have 
been  summoned  to  meet  Paul,  and  have  reached  Jerusalem 
"the  day  following"  his  arrival  in  that  city?  no,  they  were 
elders  on  the  spot,  presb3'ters  under  James.  5.  Paul  mentions 
to  tiie  Corinthians  their  ''  ten  thousand  instructers  in  Cnaisr," 
their  "  minisLers  of  Curist,"  and  desires  these  to  "  take  heed  how 
they  buiided"  on  his  foundation:  is  such  language  consistent 
willi  the  o[)inion  that  ttie  Corinthian  church  had  no  presbyter.s? 
G.  To  '•  tlie  church  of  the  Thessalonians,"  the  one  church, 
Paul  says,  "  Know  them  wiiich  labor  among  you,  and  are  over 
you  in  the  Loko:"  several  ministers  in  one  churcii — were  they 
all  bishops  ?  the  supposition  is  incongruous.  7.  'J'itiis  is 
charged  to  "ordain  elders  in  every  city,"  a  plurality  in  each 
city,  the  autliorized  translation  being  the  judge;  were  they  all 
bishops  proper  ?  no,  for  the  same  reason.  8.  So  of  the  church 
at  Pnilippi,  it  had  its  "  bisiiops  and  deacons,"  a  fUcrality  of  the 
fcjrmer  as  much  as  of  the  latter;  they  surely  were  no  more 
than  presbyter-bishops;  though  not  called  'elders,'  they  must 
have  been  of  that  grade.  9.  James  desires  the  sick  to  "send 
for  the  elders  of  tiie  church,  and  let  them  pray  over  him,"  &c.  ; 
if  •■  the  church"  means  the  patlicular  congregation  to  which 
the  sick  m  ui  belonged,  there  were  several  called  elders  in  that 
one  congregation  ;  if  it  means  the  diocese,  there  were  several  in 
one  diocL-se ;  and  botli  suppositions  are  fatal  to  the  theory 
before  us:  if  the  bishops  of  several  dioceses  were  meant,  tiieii 
they  must  assemble  from  various  distances  to  pray  over  and 
"anoint"  a  sick  person;  which  is  a  supposition  wholly  out  of 
proportion,  and  which,  if  miraculous  cures  were  frequent,  must 
liave  withdrawn  the  bishops  from  their  proper  functions,  t'l  be 
constantly  travelling  about  in  company  among  the  sick  of  the 
dioceses  in  tlieir  respective  neighborhoods.  The  only  rational 
consiructii-'U  is,  that  these  elders  were  presbyters,  and  also 
])('rliaps  di  aeons.  10.  The  Saviour  rebuked  the  "seven  an.t',els" 
of  the  Asiatic  churches  personally,  not  by  St.  John  as  if  the 
metropolitan  of  those  bishops,  but  merely  as  His  secretary  ;  and 
this  snows  that  he  was  not  their  metropolitan,  as  is  by  scnne 
imagined.  It  is  also  a  strong  argument  against  th(;re  having 
been  any  sucii  functionaries  so  early  as  the  scheme  before  us 
re(iuires.  And  when  to  this  is  added  the  fact,  that  each  of 
these  "angels"  is  sep-iralely  addressed,  not  through  him  of 
Ephesus,  it  is  clear  that  tlie  latter  was  not  their  metropolitan, 
as  is  presumed  by  Hammond  in  regard  to  Timotdy,  and  as  is 
es-eniiai  to  make  ttie  "bishops"  spoken  of  in  1  Timothy  bishops 
proper,  placed  under  him  as  their  archbishop;  without  tliTS 
further  hypothesis  his  theory  must  fall.     But  it  is  plain,  froit 


250  ANSWER   TO   A   THIRD   REVIEW    OP 

what  has  been  said,  that  there  was  no  archbishop  in  Ephesus, 
even  so  late  as  the  year  96;  of  course,  none  was  tliere  in  05; 
and  thus  the  "bishops"  meiitionefj  at  lliis  earlier  date,  as 
gdverned  by  Tniiolliy,  yet  wilhoiu  his  having  metropolitan  or 
archiepiscopal  rank,  could  have  been  only  presbyters. 

We  liave  sufficiently  refuted,  we  trust,  this  opinion  of  Dr. 
Hammond,  who,  learned  as  he  was,  does,  like  Jupiter  himself, 
occasionally  "  nod  :  "  accordingly,  he  has  not  been  followed  in 
tills  matter  by  any  writer  known  to  us.  We  have  shown  also, 
we  hope,  that  his  theory  is  not  so  sustained  as  to  present  the 
least  objection  to  the  rule,  that  the  "bishops"  so  called  in 
Scripture,  are  always  to  be  accounted  presbyters.  That  they 
had  a  superior  over  them,  our  Tract  has  shown.  And  we  now 
proceed  with  the  further  remarks  we  have  to  make  on  the 
review  of  that  production. 

These  will  be  much  abridged  by  our  having  already  offered  a 
sufficient  exposure  of  this  review,  or  sufficient  replies  to  most 
of  its  arguments.  1.  We  have  exposed  its  tone  of  positive 
assertion,  of  refuting  propositions  made  by  no  one,  and  of 
derogation  from  the  intelligence  or  the  candor  of  Episcopalians. 
Take  these  away,  and  tiiere  will  remain  but  little  that  has  even 
ttie  semblance  of  reasoning.  2.  The  apostleship  of  Timothy, 
which  tills  reviewer  denies,  has  been  sufficiently  proved  in  our 
answers  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Barnes.  Our  readers,  of  course,  do  not 
wish  to  traverse  tliat  ground  again.  And  if  the  reviewer  still 
feels  interest  enougli  in  the  subject,  to  honor  with  his  perusal 
our  piece  in  the  last  Protestant'Episcopalian,  he  can  Judge  for 
himself  whether  we  are  over  sanguine  in  our  estimate  of^  it.  One 
new  remark,  however,  we  perceive,  and  will  answer  it  briefly — 
apostles  are  "  distinguished "  from  evangelists ;  Timothy  is 
called  an  evangelist;  and  this  "precludes  the  possibility  of 
our  considering"  him  as  an  apostle.  Now,  tlie  rule  is,  that  the 
greater  office  includes  the  less,  both  being  the  same  in  kind  ; 
if,  therefore,  the  evangelists  were  officers,  the  apostles,  being 
higher  officers,  were  evangelists  also,  as  they  were  elders  like- 
wise, and  deacons;  while  yet  mere  deacons,  elders  and  evange- 
lists were  not  apostles — Timothy  was  both  an  apostle  and  an 
evaUf^elist.  If,  iiowever,  evangelists  were  7iot  officers,  as  such, 
the  objection  of  the  reviewer  vanishes.  Apostles  are  "distin- 
guished" from  "  prophets,"  and  from  "  teachers  ;"  yet  Paul  the 
apostle  is  called  both  a  prophet  and  a  teaclier  in  Acts  xiii.  So 
much  for  the  reviewer's  positiveness — "  precludes  the  possi- 
bility !"  3.  [lis  earnest  plea,  that  bishops  do  not  succeed  to 
the  extraordinary  powers  or  privileges  of  the  Apostles,  we 
have  already  sliown  to  be  a  refutation  of  what  nobody,  no 
Protestant  at  least,  affirms.  And  his  repetition  of  the  fancy, 
that  none  but  the  special  witnesses  of  the-resurrection  could  be 
apostles,  he  will  find  disposed  of  in  our  answers  to  Mr.  Barnes. 
To  adduce  Dr.  Barrow  for  this  notion,  is  to  make  him  appear 
to   maintain  what   in   fact  he   does  not:    that    divine   argues 


EnSCOPACY   TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  251 

against  the  Romanists,  that  tlie  thirteen  principal  Apostles  had 
certain    privih-ges   wliicii   did   not  and    coiiid    not   descend    by 
succession,    and  tliat  tlius  the  pope,  arrogating  some  of  these 
privilt-ges,  arrogites  what  does  not  belong  to  him  ;  for  in  tliis 
sense,  St.  Peter  had  no  successors,      lint  tlial  bishops   inlierit 
tlie  ordln-anj  rights  of  tiie  Apostles  Dr.  Barrow  expressly  allows, 
even  to  "  a  universal  S')vcicign  authority,  conimcnsurale  to  an 
apostle:"  he  quotes  C3'prian  as  "affirming  that  the  bislio])s  do 
succeed  St.  Peter  and  the  other  Apostles  by  vicarious  ordina- 
tion ;  tiiat  tlie  bishops  are  apostles" — and  as  saying  that  '"in 
Episcopncy   doth    reside   the    sublime   and    divine    power   of 
governing  the  Church,  it  being  the  sublime  top  of  the  priest- 
hood." (p.  125,  193.)     Let  not  Dr.  Barrow  be  misunderstood  ; 
he  says  not  one  word,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  in  favor  of 
paritj'.     4.  On  the  '•  superiority  of  the  ministerial   power  and- 
ritrihis"'  of  the  apostles  over  elders,  we  remarked — after  showing 
the    untenableness    of  other    theories — that    it    •'  would   not   be 
questioned."     The  reviewer  starts  at  the  assertion  ;  and  well  he 
In;l\^  for  it  leads  to  the  inevitable  demolition  of  his  theory  of 
{ireshyterial  "  power  and   rights."     He  recoils,    as  naturally  as 
wisely,  and  declares,  "  We  certainly,  however,  do  question  it." 
Very  w«'ll — our   proposition  is  questioned — by  whom  ?    by  the 
reviewer — we   must  subtract  a  imit  from   our  sum   total — v^e 
stand  1000  instead  of  1001.     Mr.  Barnes  does  not  deny  it,  so  far 
as   we    perceive.     Calvin    asserts   what  we    say   "  will    not   be 
qupsiioned  ;"    the    Divines    in    the    Isle    of  Wight   assert   it; 
Matthew  Henry  asserts  it;  Dr.  Camphell  asserts  it;  Dr.  Miller 
asfterts    it;    the    late    Dr.    Wilson    asserts    it.      All    this    the 
reader  will  find  in  our  replies  to   Mr.  Baj'ues.     We  now  add 
Poole's  Synopsis,  Burkilt,  and  Adam  Clarke;  which  see.     And 
we  make  our  stand  on   this  authorily,  for  the  declaration  '"Jt 
will    not   be  questioned,"    till   a   name   is  given   us   which  will 
show   that    further    inquiry   is  worth   our   trouble.     5.   'i'o   our 
second  answer  to  Mr.  Barnes  we  refer,  likewise,  besides  to  the 
Triict,   for  a  mass  of  proofs  that  the  text  which  speaks  of  "  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery  "  is  enveloped  in  too 
much  doubt,  to  be   made   the  basis  of  any  argument   on    the 
question   before   us.     Nay,  we  refer  to   this   reviewer   himself, 
who  gives  the  following  abstract  of  what  is  said  in  tlie  Tract  on 
this  passage,  without  attempting  to  refute  a  single  portion  of  it. 
He  is  content   to  put  in  italics,   and   so  produce  a  caricature 
coloring,  some  of  the  words  which  we  shall  give  in  plain  letters, 
tlnit  the  artiument   may  be  seen   unperverled  ;  he  is  content  to 
call  it  a  -'wonderful  jingle  of  words,"    "inferences    jjerfcclly 
in(;otis('qnenlial  and  unwarranted;"  but  as  to  reasoning  against 
it,  that  the  reviewer  leaves  untried.     Here  is  the  abstract;  ue 
thank  him  for  it;  we  adopt  it,  except  the  imaulhorized  expres- 
sions wiiich  we  place  in  brackets,    and    havt;  only  to  recjuest 
our  readers  to  go  for  its  proofs  and  illustrations  to   the  Tract 
Uself. 


252  ANSWER   TO    A   TUfRD    HEVIF.W    OP 

"  It  cannot  be  •proved  that  the  Apostle,  when  he  speaks  of  the  '  hands  of 
the  presbytery '  being  laid  on  Timothy,  refers  to  his  ordination  at  all.  It 
is  [perhaps,]  more  probable,  that  it  refers  to  his  being  set  apart  to  a  special 
[and  temporary]  service :  or  it  may  be  understood  to  mean,  (if  it  does  refer 
to  his  ordination)  thnt  he  was  set  apart,  by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  to  '  the 
preshijtcrate.'  that  is,  to  the  office  of  presbyter.  Yet,  even  if  this  be  supposed, 
as  the  title  of  presbyter,  as  used  in  the  New  Testament,  means  any  thinir 
and  every  thing  in  ecclesiastical  office,  it  may  be  here  construed  to  mean 
something  higher  than  a  mere  presbyter,  strictly  speaking;  [therefore] 
there  is  at  least  as  much  evidence  that  it  means  a  prelate  as  a  presbyter. 
Besides,  for  any  thing  we  know  to  the  contrary,  tlie  'presbytery'  which 
officiated  on  this  occasion,  '  may  have  consisted  of  apostles  only,  or  of  one  or 
more  apostles  joined  with  others  ; '  as  the  Apostle  speaks,  in  another  place, 
of  having  laid  his  own  hands  on  Timothy.  If  this  be  so,  it  cannot  of 
course  be  claimed  as  a  Presbyterian,  but  was  an  apostolic  ordination.  We 
may  be  considered,  then,  as  hiving  proved,  that  presbyters  alone  did  not 
perforin  the  ordination,  granting  the  transaction  to  have  been  one  ;  but  that 
an  apostle  actually  belonged,  or  else  was  added  for  this  purpose,  to  t\u-  body 
called  a  '  presbytery.'  It  is  also  worthy  of  notice,  that  St.  Paul  makes  the 
following  distinction  in  regard  to  his  own  agency  and  that  o^ others  in  this 
supposed  ordinition,  'fey  the  putting  on  of  my  hands'  —  ^ xcilh  the  layinor 
on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery.'  Such  a  distinction  may  justly  be 
regarded  as  intimating  that  the  virtue  of  the  ordaining  act  flowed  from 
Paul ;  while  the  presbytery,  or  the  rest  of  that  body,  if  he  were  included  in 
it,  expressed  only  consent.  On  the  whole,  the  language  here  used  requires 
us  to  believe  that  a  minister  of  higher  rank  than  an  ordinary  presbyter 
was  present  and  officiated  in  this  ordination — or  what  is  said  to  be  the 
ordination  of  Timothy.  At  any  rate,  the  Episcopal  theory  is  at  least  as 
good  a  key  as  tiiat  of  parity  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  '  presbytery ; '  and 
considering  the  above  distinction  of '  ^  '  and  '  with.,'  our  theory  is  obviously 
the  better  of  the  two." 

"  It  is  doubtful  whether  either  of  these  [fimous]  passages  refers  to  the 
ordination  of  Timothy  or  not.  If  either  or  both  have  such  a  reference,  they 
[♦  admit  of  an  interpretation  quite  as  favorable  to  prelacy  as  to  parity  ;  J 
therefore,  as  [some]  other  passages  of  Scripture  [seem  to]  wear  an  aspect 
[more]  favorable  to  prelacy  [than  parity,]  we  are  bound  to  interpret  these — 
which  are  acknowledged  to  be  [still  more]  doubtful — in  the  same  way." 

Perfectly  astonished  we  were  to  find  such  a  train  of  argument 
against  llie  chief  text  for  parity — distorted  eveti  as  it  was  with 
sly  additions  and  italics — iti  a  defence  of  that  form  of  the  minis- 
try. And  if  all  the  readers  of  the  Biblical  Repertory  are  tiot  of 
the  "less-informed"  class,  there  will  certainly  be  some  partici- 
pation in  our  surprise,  among  tliose  who  can  distinguish  between 
an  argument  and  the  perversion  of  it,  and  who  are  not  overborne 
by  sweeping  posiiiveness.  Such  readers  will  observe,  that  not  a 
syllable  of  reasoning  is  offered  against  this  abstract — not  one. 
Tiie  grand  text  for  Presbyterians  is  left  unextricated  from  the 
dark  accumulations  ni  doubt ^  which  make  it  unfit  to  be  brought 
into  t'le  discussion — accumulations,  which  we  have  pretty  largely 
exhibited  in  our  reply  to  Mr.  Barnes,  and  to.  which  the  reviewer 
him.self  has  added,  by  this  almost  faithful  copy  of  some  of  them 


*  Our  assertion  was,  tliey  are  "  more  consistent  with  Episcopacy." 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY  SCRIPTt'HE.  253 

from  our  Tract,  with  no  weio^htier  objection  against  them,  than 
some  loiiclies  of  misrepresenlalion  and  caricature,  and  the  arro- 
gant asseriinri  that  tliey  sliouUi  "  be  driven  from  any  enlightened 
and  impartial  tribunal  on  earth,  as  nnwortliy  of  an  answer." 

One  of  the  main  holds  of  parity  on  Scripture  is  thus  left  unsup- 
ported by  the  reviewer.  As  liille  protection  is  extended  by  him 
to  the  only  other  two  scriptural  expositions  attempted  in  its 
behalf  The  "transaction  at  Andoch"  —  in  Acts  xiii.,  wiiicii  has 
often  been  represented  as  a  Presbyterian  ordination,  but  which 
IMr.  Barnes  ingenuously  declares  not  to  have  been  an  ordination 
of  any  kind,  and  which  Dr.  Miller,  in  his  late  Tract,  seeiTis  alsd 
to  surrender — this  "transaction,"  though  dwelt  npon  largely  in 
"  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture,"  the  reviewer  passes  by  in 
perfect  silence.  And,  if  silence  gives  consent,  we  must  conclude 
that  he  cannot  gainsay  our  reasoning  on  the  case.  The  third 
allegation  from  Scripture,  in  favor  of  parity — that  in  the  ads 
of  ordination  there  clearly  recorded,  a  plurality  of  ordainers  offi- 
ciated— the  reviewer  notices  not  except  once,  merely  in  passing'. 
The  allegation  is  good  for  nothing:  because — 1.  The  ordainers 
in  tliose  cases  were  all  apostles,  which  fact  gives  no  support,  but 
rather  is  opposed,  to  the  exercise  of  that  function  by  mere  pres- 
bvlers;  2.  The  rip-ht  to  ordain  is  recognised  as  existing  in 
Timothy  and  Titus  iudividualhj ;  and,  3.  It  follows  that  it  exist- 
ed in  all  the  apostles  individually.  So  much  for  tlie  "plurality" 
argument.  And  so  much  for  all  the  three  arguments — the  only 
three — that  our  Presbyterian  brethren  think  they  find  for  their 
ministry,  in  the  holy  vohnne. 

The  reviewer  would  enlighten  ns  on  the  distinction  between 
oToirroXof  (apostlc)  iu  "the  official^  and  the  lax  or  general  sense 
of  this  term  " — adding,  that  "  the  learned  translators  of  our 
English  Bible,  though  themselves  zealous  Episcopalians,  seldom 
fail  to  recognise"  this  distinction.  Very  well.  Have  we  used 
the  word  "apostle"  in  any  passage  of  Scripture  where  the  trans- 
lators have  not  given  it?  no,  not  once,  in  any  part  of  our  own 
argument.  We  call  Barnabas  an  apostle,  because  tht;  translators 
give  liim  that  designation,  twice  positively,  and  twice,  at  least, 
by  implication.  (Acts  xiv.  4,  14;  Gal.  ii.  8,  9  ;  1  Cor,  ix.  5,6.) 
We  call  Sdvanus  and  Timothy  apostles,  because  the  translators 
do  so.  (1  Thess.  ii.  6.)  We  call  Andronicus  and  Junia  [or 
Jiniias]  apostles,  for  the  same  reason,  under  a  fair  construction 
of  the  passage.*  (Rom.  xvi.  7.)  We  speak  of  the  "  false 
apostles"  by  that  title,  with  the  same  authority  of  the  Irans- 
jators.  (2  Cor.  xi.  13  ;  Rev.  ii.  2.)  Let  the  reviewer,  and  his 
Presbyterian  friends,  adhere  to  this  rule,  as  we  have  done,  and 
there  Will  be  so  much  less  remaining  of  the  controversy. 
Besides :  when  Barnabas,  Silvauus  and  Timothy  are  called 
apostles,  they  are  so  called  in  conjnnclion  with  Paul  ;  which 
shows  the  three  former  to  have  been  apostles  officially,  as  the 


'  Add,  for  M^,  Burk's  Diclinnary,  and  Selden.  ns  quoted  by  Wolfius.  Also,  Disliop 
White  on  itie  CHiecliism,  p,  41(1 ;  Dr.  Tiiriicr  on  HomiinM,  p.  102;  and  Coverdale 
wlio  iranHlulen,  ■'  wliicli  are  uwiicieiit  apuKtleM." 


254  ANSWER    TO   A   THmO    REVrEW    OF 

latter  was.  So  with  regard  to  the  false  apostles :  these,  after 
comparing  himself  witli  "  the  very  chiefest  Apostles,"  Paul  con- 
trasts with  "the  Apostles  of  Christ:"  lliey  claimed  this  desig- 
nation in  the  same  official  sense  that  it  belonged  to  Paul  and  ail 
others  wtio  had  the  genuine  apostolic  character.  Instead  of 
meeting  us  on  this  view  of  tiie  point,  the  reviewer  argues  against 
regarding  as  apostles  tiiose  vvliom  the  translators  call  "  messen- 
gers"—  a  topic  wliich  our  disquisition  has  not  touclied.  On  the 
apostlesliip  of  Barnabas,  and  the  case  of  the  false  apostles,  he 
does  not  argue  at  all. 

"  We  drew  a  coiTiparison,  in  our  Tract,  between  the  address  of 
Paul  to  the  elders  of  Ephesus,  and  his  epistles  to  Timolliy, 
showing  that  while  the  former  were  to  "  tend,"  i.  e.  feed  and 
rule  llie  yZoc/c,  tlie  latter  was  to  rule  ihe7)i,  and  ordain  ctliers 
like  them.  Wliat  is  ilie  reply  of  tlie  reviewer  ?  He  says,  "  We 
might  iiave  expected  great  diveisit]/  in  the  mode  of  address  in 
these  two  cases,  because  tiie  circumstances  of  llie  persons 
addressed  were  essentially  different y  Let  this  be  noted — there 
is  ''great  diversity"  between  the  address  and  the  epistles. 
What  was  the  reason  for  it?  because  "circumstances"  were 
"essentially  different:"  because  Timothy  was  an  apostle-bisliop 
say  we;  because  he  was  an  "evangelist,"  says  the  reviewer — 
the  old  plea  revived  whicii  Mr.  Barnes  so  honestly  and  judi- 
ciously avoided.  Must  vve  open  again,  then,  the  argument  on 
tills  futile  plea?  We  deem  it  unnecessary  to  do  so.  after  what 
\te  have  written  in  the  postscript  and  notes  to  the  Tract,  and  in 
our  replies  to  Mr.  Barnes.*  We  will  only  notice  one  point  iu 
which  the  reviewer  has  miserably  exposed  himself.  He  goes 
to  Ensebius,  and  quotes  what  relates  to  the  migratory  part  of 
the  duties  of  evangelists,  and  tlieir  ordaining;  but  he  omits  to 
quote — what?  the  very  hinge  of  the  appeal  to  this  father's 
authority.  These  evangelists  "obtained,"  says  Eusebius,  "  the 
first  step  Ta^iv  o{  a^osioWcdX  succession,"  according  to  tlie  transla- 
tion used  for  our  Tract,  or  according  to  Mr.  Cruse,  (p.  123,) 
they  "  held  the  first  rank  raiiv  in  the  apostolic  succession." 
What  shall  we  think  of  the  boldness  of  a  writer  who  makes 
such  an  omission,  with  the  Tract  before  him,  and  in  the  hands 
of  thousands  !  and  with  Eusebius  before  him,  for  he  gives  a  yet 
different  translation!  it  is  enough  to  rouse  the  honest  indigna- 
tion of  even  tiie  least  "informed"  of  his  readers.  And  what 
shall  we  think  of  a  writer,  who,  with  this  sin  of  omission,  a 
downright  suppressio  veri,  fresh  on  his  conscience,  swallows  it 
fearlessly,  and  then  lifts  loftily  his  head,  and  ascribes  "  evasion 


*  Scultetus,  from  Zninglius,  regards  an  evangelist  as  a  [presbyter]  bisfiop  or 
pastor.  (Po.  Syn.  on  2  Tim.  iv.  5.)  Piscator  calls  Piiilip  tlie  Evangelist  merely  a 
preacher  of  the  Gospel,  "  praeo  evangelii  ;"  and  regards  those  in  Eph.  iv.,  and 
2  Tim.  iv.  as  the  same.  (Do.  on  Acts  xxi.)  Aretius  on  this  passage  says,  "These 
appear  to  be  ministers  of  particular  ckurc/tes,  and  teachers  of  the  schools  :  which 
Pantenus  was,  Basilius,  and  others."  A.  Clarke  (on  2  Tim.  iv.)  allows  et«i)gelist4 
to  have  been  only  preachers.     All  these  authorities  are  Non-episcopalian. 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  'SSS 

and  management,"  and  "  undertaking  to  dispose  of  the  plain 
record,"  to  ills  opponent!  There  are  not  njany  theoh)giaus 
who  would  do  all  this. 

The  reviewer  allows  a  "  great  diversity  "  between  the  address 
to  the  elders  and  the  epistles  to  Tiinolliy;  he  allows  thai  llie 
"circumstances"  of  the  two  parlies  wt;re  ''essentially  dirt'ereiit." 
But  he  alleges  that  "  Timothy  was  obviously  sent  on  a  tempo- 
rary mission,"  to  "  rectify  disorders,"  &.C.,  in  a  "  coliecied  and 
officered  flock."  Notice  here — the  churcli  of  Ephesus  was 
"  officered,"  had  presbyters — it  was  fully  constituted,  on  llie 
Presbyterian  theory.  Farewell  then  to  the  old  plea,  that  it  had 
no  clergy  when  Timothy  was  placed  there,  and  tiiat  he  was 
thus  stationed  to  ordain  clergy  for  the  church,  and  liien  leave  it 
to  Presbyterial  government.  Tliey  had  Presbyterial  govern- 
ment alread}',  says  the  reviewer,  and  Timothy  was  sent  with 
evangelical  government,  so  called,  to  "rectify  disorders." — 
Now,  if  Presbyterial  government  is  liable  to  fall  into  "  disorder," 
and  is  without  the  intrinsic  power  to  "  rectify  "  it — .so  glaringly 
deficient,  as  to  require  the  snperinduction  on  it  of  anotlier  kind 
of  government  exercised  by  one  individual  put  in  authority 
over  the  presbyters — then  there  is  a  most  weighty  presumption 
against  its  being  the  one  chosen  by  Christ  or  his  Aj)oslles — and 
there  is  a  presumption  equally  strong,  that  the  so-called  etan- 
gelical  government,  that  of  an  officer  superior  to  presbyters, 
must  rather  have  been  the  one  they  instituted,  seeing  it  was 
used  by  tliem,  the  reviewer  being  judge,  as  a  remedy  for  the 
mischiefs  arising  under  the  other  supposed  form.  'J'lie  lia- 
bility of  churches  to  "disorder"  is  not  "temporary,"  it  is 
perpetual;  and  actual  "disorder"  frequently  occurs:  is  it 
probable,  then,  that  the  remedy  for  it  would  be  "temporary?" 
No;  what  the  reviewer  calls  government  by  "evangelists"  is 
necessary  in  all  ages,  and  was  to  endure  through  all  ages. 
Wiiat  else  is  meant  by  the  injunction  on  Timothy  to  "keep 
his  commandment,"  or  fulfil  his  charge,  " ////  the  appear- 
ing of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ?"  Have  the  Presbyterians  any 
such  officer  as  Timothy — an  "  evangelist"  with  power  over  the 
presbyters  of  an  "organized  church,"  of  a  "collected  and 
officered  flock,"  or  over  such  a  church  itself?  no,  nothing  like 
it.  They  send  their  "evangelists"  into  "  destitute  settlements," 
and  like  places  —  not  into  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  or 
either  of  its  presbyteries,  be  their  "disorder"  ever  so  great. 
The  r(;viewer  says  they  have  the  "evangelists"  of  Eusebius — . 
we  think  otherwise — but  at  all  events  they  have  n«)t  the  "  evan- 
gelists" supposed  to  be  found  in  IJoly  Scripture — such  officers 
as  Timothy  was.  Let  them  make  the  experiment  —  let  the 
General  Assembly  send  an  "evangelist"  into  the  Synod  of 
Philadelphia — let  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  send  an  "evange- 
list "  into  either  of  its  presbyteries — to  "charge  some  that  tliey 
teach  no  other  doctrine,"  to  have  supreme  aiiiliority  in  ordain- 
ing presbyter-bishops  and  deacons,  to  "  command  and  teach  " 


256  ANSWER   TO    A    THIRD    REVIEW    OP 

concerning  the  doctrines  to  be  inculcated,  to  "  receive  accnsalions 
against  elders,"  to  "  rebuke"  those  of  them  "that  sin,"  to  "turn 
away"  authoritatively  from  the  perverse,  and  to  "keep  this 
commandment  until  the  appearing  of  Christ"  —  \ei  such  an 
"evangelist"  be  sent  into  any  synod  or  any  presbytery  of  the 
Presbyterian  communion,  and  every  member  of  them  will 
regard  the  mission  as  an  insult,  as  an  infringement  of  their 
rights,  as  an  atteinpt  to  "lord  it  over  God's  heritage:"  send 
your  "evangelist,"  they  will  exclaim,  where  Eusebius  says  he 
should  go,  not  where  Scripture  declares  Timothy  to  have 
been  sent — to  "destitute  settlements,"  not  to  "organized  and 
officered"  churches.  Try  this  experiment,  and  we  shall  see 
the  fallacy  of  this  whole  Presbyterian  argument — the  alleged 
"evangelist"  of  Scripture  will  be  rejected,  as  positively  as 
bisliops  are,  and  Eusebius,  as  they  would  read  him,  will  be 
lionored  over  the  head  of  Paul.  The  reviewer  also  will  disco- 
ver his  egregious  mistake,  in  saying,  "There  is  nothing  repre- 
sented in  Scripture  as  enjoined  upon  Timothy  and  Titus,  or  as 
done  by  them,  which  is  not  perfectly  consistent  with  Presbyte- 
rian principle  and  practice."  How  luckless  an  assertion  !  "  per- 
fectly consistent ! !  "     O  most  positive  reviewer ! 

Be  "evangelists"  what  they  may,  Presbyterians  do  not  send 
them  to  "organized  and  officered"  churches,  witii  authority 
over  tlie  clergy.  Timotiiy  ^cas  sent  to  such  a  church,  tlie 
reviewer  being  judge,  and  with  such  authority.  Tlierefore 
Timothy  was  not  an  "evangelist"  of  the  Presbyterian  kind. 

Be  "  evangelists"  what  they  may,  Timothy  and  other  officers 
like  him,  were  to  exercise  such  authority  "till  tlie  appearing  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  This  is  a  final  condemnation  of  the 
fancy,  that  such  an  office  as  that  of  Timothy  was  but  "tempo- 
rary." What  answer  does  the  Presbyterian  give  the  Quaker, 
alleging  that  the  visible  eucharist  was  but  a  "temporary"  insti- 
tution? he  replies,  We  are  to  "show  the  Lord's  death  till  he 
corned  What  answer,  then,  will  the  Presbyterian  give  the 
Episcopalian,  when,  to  confute  the  notion  that  Timothy's  office 
was  a  "temporary"  one,  he  appeals  to  the  solemn  cliarge  of 
Paul,  "  Keep  this  commandment  till  the  Lord  appears?"''  What 
answer  to  this  !  The  argument  was  advanced  in  a  note  to  the 
Tract ;  but  neither  Mr.  Barnes  nor  this  reviewer  has  seen  fit  to 
notice  it.     "  Expressive  silence  !" 

As  to  the  objection  that  Paul  says  nothing  of  a  bishop  proper, 
or  rather  of  tiie  want  of  one,  to  the  Ephesian  elders — why  sliouid 
he  have  done  so  ?  His  leaving  them  did  not  deprive  them  of  the 
apostolical  Episcopacy,  as  exercised  at  large  —  and  tiiis  they 
knew  very  well.  Episcopacy  as  exercised  by  restraint,  each 
bishop  having  his  particular  diocese,  was  only  anotiier  arrange- 
ment of  the  same  ministry.  James  was  bisiiop  of  the  diocese 
of  Jerusalem.  With  this  exception,  we  read,  perhaps,  of  no 
dioceses  till  the  special  connection  of  Timothy  with  Ephesus,  of 
Titus  with  Crete,  and  of  the  '  seven  angels '  with  their  respective 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  257 

churches.  And  even  if  these  nine  are  not  allowed  to  have  been 
diocesans,  it  still  is  no  proof  that  they  were  not  bishops  proper. 
That  proof  we  derive  from  the  record  of  their  powers;  and  those 
powers  were  theirs  fully  and  for  life,  whether  exercised  in  any 
one  place  for  a  week,  or  for  "  many  monllis,"  or  for  "years,"  or 
till  they  descended  to  the  tomb.  They  had  the  ^^ prelatical  char- 
acter;" the  question  whether  they  exercised  it  lender  diocesan 
restrictions,  is  one  of  no  moment  whatever  in  our  controversy 
witli  Non-episcopalians — it  concerns  not  them,  but  only  our  ouii 
communion.  The  point  is — Do  we  find  bishops  proper  in  Scrip- 
ture ?    And  this  our  Tract  has  fully  settled. 

"  But  did  either  Timothy  or  Titus  ever,  in  a  single  instance, 
perform  the  work  of  ordination  alone?"  asks  the  reviewer. 
Reall}'  we  do  not  know  :  but  should  we  ever  see  the  first  epis- 
copal records  of  the  Ephesian  and  Cretan  churches,  we  will  give 
him  the  information.  These  records  being  lost,  neither  he  nur 
we  can  say  whether  they  "ever,  in  a  single  instance^''  ordaimd 
alone,  or  whether  they  "ever"  ordained  at  all.  But  this  we  can 
say — the  poicer  of  ordaining  was  given  to  them,  and  to  tliein 
individnally  —  '-Lay  thou  hands  suddenly  on  no  man"  —  "l  r 
same  commit  thoii  to  faithful  men"  —  "that  thou  shouMt-t 
ordain  elders  in  every  city  "  —  "this  charge  I  commit  unto  thee.'''' 
Such  scriptures,  one  would  think,  are  plain  enough.  Not,  how- 
ever, to  the  reviewer.  He  replies,  "  We  know  that  Mark  was 
with  Timothy,  and  that  Zenas  and  Apollos  were  with  Titu>. 
Who  can  tell  but  that  these  ecclesiastical  companions  took  part 
in  every  ordination  ? "  Without  meaning  to  be  over  positive,  v" 
"can  tell"  the  reviewer  about  this  matter,  provided  he  will  he 
content  with  evidence  only,  without  theory.  Thus:  when  Paul 
was  in  Rome  the  first  time,  he  expected  Mark  to  go  from  thence 
t(»  C<jlosse  ;  after  this,  he  placed  Timothy  at  Ephesus  ;  and  yd 
later,  he  desired  Timothy  to  "  take  Mark,  and  bring  him  "  wiili 
him  to  Rome,  where  Paul  again  was,  (Col.  iv.  10;  1  Tim.  i.  3; 
2  Tim.  iv.  11) — "in  \\\y  way  call  on  Mark,"  says  Macknight — 
"take  the  first  opportunity  of  engaging  the  company  of  Mark," 
says  Doddridge  :  the  evidence  is,  that  Mark  was  to  go  to  Colosso, 
and  that  Timothy  went  to  Ephesus — separ-ate  stations:— and  that 
Timothy  was  to  "take  Mark,"  probably  either  on  his  way,  or  by 
sending  for  him,  in  again  visiting  Rome.  Does  this  evidence 
justify  the  positive  assertion,  "we  know  that  Mark  was  with 
Timothy?"  or  the  insinuation  that  the  former  "look  part"  with 
the  latter  "in  eivry  ordination  ?"  Surely  not.  Thus  again, 
concerning  Titus:  do  we  '•  know"  that  Zenas  and  Apollos  were 
with  him  ?  The  only  evidence  is  this  direction  to  Titus,  (iii.  13.) 
"  Urins  Zenas  the  lawyer  and  Apollos  on  tiieir  journey  rlili- 
geiitly  ;"  this  "journey"  or  voyage,  is  interpreted  of  one  wliicii 
began  before  their  reaching  Crete,  on  their  way  to  some  furllier 
point;  so  say  Doddridge  and  Macknight,  and  no  commentaior 
within  our  reach  says  otherwise;  of  course  they  were  "with 
Titus  "  only  while  they  halted  on  their  journey,  and  could  not 
22* 


258  ANSWER    TO   A    THIRD   REVIEW   OP 

have  "  taken  part "  in  his  "  every  ordination,"  if  they  did  in  even 
one.  Tiaiothy  and  Titus  had  the  power  to  ordain  singly,  with- 
out assistants  :  wliether  they  allowed  the  otlier  clergy  to  take  pari 
with  them  "ever,  in  a  single  instance,"  or  in  many  instances, 
or  as  a  general  rule,  we  know  not ;  neither  is  it  of  any  conse- 
quence. Perfect  as  was  the  ordaining  power  in  them,  and  per- 
fect as  it  is  in  their  successors  "  till  the  appearing  of  Jesus 
Christ,"  it  is  proper  to  regulate  the  exercise  of  it,  lest  it  be 
abused;  hence  the  regulation  which  requires  a  plurality  to  lay 
on  hands,  except  in  the  case  of  deacons,  who  however  are 
"presented"  by  a  priest,  and  who  preach  only  in  virtue  of  a 
license  given  and  revocable  by  the  bishop.*  But  were  we  to 
take  the  reviewer  at  his  word,  in  the  case  of  Zenas  and  Apollos, 
he  would  find  that  he  has  weakened  his  cause  in  one  part,  while 
attempting  to  strengthen  it  in  another.  Presbyterians  generally 
argue  that  there  were  no  clergy  in  Crete  Vv-hen  Titus  was  left 
there,  and  that  he  was  to  ordain  them  as  an  "evangelist,"  for 
lack  of  a  "  presbytery  "  on  the  island.  The  reviewer,  however, 
has  found  a  Cretan  "  presbytery  "  —  Zenas  and  Apollos — both  of 
them,  we  doubt  not,  very  capable  men.  Yet  the  superior  ofhcer, 
Titus,  is  placed  there,  to  eclipse  the  "presbytery,"  and  take  the 
government  and  ordinations  in  his  own  hands  !  Very  strange, 
on  "Presbyterian  principles!" 

The  epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus  "  are  addressed  to  them 
individually  "  —  this  the  reviewer  allows.  But  he  does  not  tliink 
that  this  circumstance  "  affects  his  reasoning"  in  behalf  of  parity. 
Let  us  examine  his  argument  on  this  point. —  "  Tiiese  men  went 
to  Ephesus  and  Crete  as  a  kind  of  special  envoys^  and  the 
epistles  were  "  the  system  of  instructions  addressed  to  them 
personalhj : "  this  must  be  noted.  Next, —  "  a  Presbyterian  ordi- 
nation never  occurs  without  addressing  to  the  neuly-ordained 
minister  language  of  precisely  the  same  import:''^  tlien  tiie 
minister,  we  must  infer,  is  "a  kind  of  special  envoy"  to  some 
"officered"  church,  not  a  mere  pastoral  elder !  his  office  must 
correspond  with  his  "  instructions ! "  and  he  is  instructed  per- 
sonally to  "  charge  some  "  presbyters  "  that  they  teach  no  other 
doctrine;"  persona%  he  is  instructed  about  ordaining,  and 
receiving  accusations  against  presbyters !  if  not,  if  he  is  told 
how  to  do  these  things  in  conjunction  with  others,  not  personally, 
then  it  is  deception  to  say,  that  "language"  is  addressed  to  him 
'■^ oi precisely  the  same  import"  with  that  addressed  to  Timothy 
and  Titus.  Further:  our  argument  from  this  personal  mode  of 
address,  says  the  reviewer,  "  will  prove  too  much,  for  it  will 
prove  that  these  evangelists  alone  were  empowered  to  preach 

*  By  the  way,  what  are  the  licentiates  of  Presbylerians,  but  a  quasi  sort  of  preach- 
ing deacons — cultivating,  under  a  revocable  license,  the  "great  boldness"  in  declar. 
ing  "  the  faith  "  —  and  "  purchasing  to  themselves  the  good  degree  "  of  presbyters  1 
How  expressive  an  acknowledgment,  though  a  silent  one,  of  the  soundness  of  the 
Episcopal  construction  of  1  Tim.  iii.  13  !  This  is  an  aflcr-thoug-ht,  or  it  would  hav« 
been  introduced  in  the  proper  place. 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE.  259 

and  pray"  in  Ephesus  and  Crete:  the  remark  is  probably  inad- 
vertent: for  not  once  is  eitlier  Tinioliiy  or  'I'itiis  (iirccted  to 
"pray;"  not  once,  though  the  former  is  desired  to  regidate  the 
public  prayers,  and  tlie  charge  to  superintend  the  "teaching  "  ot 
others,  shows  that  others  besides  Timothy  and  Titus  were  to 
"  preach  ;"  such,  for  example,  as  tiie  ''elders  wlio  labored  in  the 
word  and  ddclrine:"  the  reviewer  ought  not  to  nod  with  his 
Bible  before  him.  His  last  reply  to  our  argument  from  tlie  per- 
sonal style  of  the  epistles,  is,  that  *'  no  evangelist  is  ever  sent  forth 
by  [liis]  church  for  the  purpose  of  organizing  and  setting  in 
order  churches,  witliout  special  instructions,  in  the  form  of  a 
letter,  and  addressed  to  him  personally  :  "  the  alleged  evangelists 
of  Eusebius  again!  not  officers  like  Timothy,  sent  to  churches 
"  collected,  organized,  officered,  regular  !  "  To  evangelists  such 
as  Eusebius  is  said  to  describe,  any  thing  may  be  addressed, 
in  any  way,  without  affecting  the  scriptural  argument  for 
Episcopacy. 

He  adds,  that  nothing  is  said  to  tlie  clergy  of  Ephesus  and 
Crete  "about  prelates,  tiieir  rights."  «Sic.,  and  "they  are  never 
even  once  reminded  that  it  is  their  duty  lo  be  docile  and  obedient 
to  their  proper  diocesan."  Now,  tliere  is  just  as  little  said  about 
the  "special  envoy,"  and  of  docility  and  obedience  to /lim,  as 
about  the  "  prelate,"  and  dutiful  submission  to  his  godly  injunc- 
tions:  so  that  if  the  objection  of  the  reviewer  is  worth  any 
thing,  it  demolishes  the  superior  "rights"  of  'I'imolhy  and 
•Titus  in  every  shape!  he  throws  down  his  own  theory  to 
make  a  barricade  for  annoying  ours  !  But  be  is  wholly  in 
error.  A  "  prelate  "  is  largely  and  plainly  described  in  these 
epistles — a  church  officer  higher  than  all  the  other  church 
officers  about  him.  And  the  charge  to  him  to  govern  is,  con- 
versely, a  charge  to  them  to  be  governed,  to  be  "  docile  and 
obedient"  to  him.  In  short,  these  epistles  are  the  broad  and 
clear  credentials  of  Episcopacy — of  the  "rights"  of  apostle- 
bishops — and,  by  consequence,  of  the  inferior  privileges  of 
presbyter-bishops  and  deacons.  They  show  what  these  three 
orders  were  in  apostolic  days,  and  what  they  are  to  continue  to 
be  "till  the  appearing  of  our  Lord." 

The  reviewer  says  that  we  have  not  "  proved  that  the  second 
epistle  to  Timothy  was  addressed  to  him  at  Ephesus  at  all." 
No;  we  did  not  in  tlie  Tract :  nor  is  it  necessary  to  do  so  for 
the  episcopal  argument,  thougli  the  point  has  a  bearing  on  the 
diocesan  argument;  for  there  were,  and  may  always  be,  apostle- 
bishops  or  prelates  not  diocesans;  just  as  there  are  missionary 
presbyters  without  parishes,  or  schoolmaster  presbyters,  or 
"amateur"  presbyters,  as  they  have  lately  been  most  happily 
dubbed.  But  to  satisfy  the  reviewer,  or  at  least  our  readers, 
that  Timothy  was  in  Ephesus,  or  had  charge  of  it,  when  the 
second  epistle  was  written  to  him,  we  offer  the  following  rea- 
sons:— 1.  He  was  in  that  city  at  the  date  of  the  first  epistle, 
A.  D.  65;  and  there  is  no  intimation  that  he  had  left  it  at  the 


260  ANSWER   TO    A   THIRD    REVIEW   OF 

date  of  the  second,  A.  D.  66  ;*  this  throws  the  burden  of  proof 
on    those  wlio  deny   that,   he  was   there   at   tlie  latter  period. 

2.  Tiinolliy  being  placed  at  Epliesus  to  remedy  great  "disor- 
ders," it  is  not  probable  he  would  leave  it  before  the  end  of  a 
year,  when  the  second  epistle  was  written:  we  here  meet  the 
reviewer  on  his  own  ground  ;  even  if  his  mission  were  a 
"  temporary  "  one,  he  cuuld  not  have  accomplished  it  so  soon. 

3.  Paul,  as  was  not  unusual  with  him,  names  the  messenger  by 
whom  lie  transmits  the  second  epistle  to  Timothy,  and  says 
that  he  had  despatched  him  to  Ephesus:  "  Tychicus  have  I 
sent  to  Ephesus:"  this  argument  is  indeed  cavilled  at  by  some, 
but  those  who  will  compare  the  passage  with  those  referred  to 
below,  will,  we  think,  deem  it  conclusive  in  our  favor.  (2  Tim. 
iv.  12.  See  also  Rom.  xvi.  1;  1  Cor.  iv.  17;  xvi.  10;  2  Cor. 
viii.  16-18;  Eph.  vi.  21 ;  Philip,  ii.  25  ;  Col.  iv.  7-9;  Philem.  12; 
also  1  Pet.  v,  12.)  4.  Paul,  in  the  second  epistle,  desires  Timo- 
thy to  salute  the  family  of  Onesiphorus  ;  and  the  residence  of 
this  excellent  person  was  in  Ephesus,  tliough  he  himself  ap- 
pears to  have  been  absent  from  it  at  that  time.  (2  Tim.  iv.  19 ; 
comp.  ch.  i.  16-18.)  In  Acts  xix.  33,  we  find  a  certain  Alex- 
ander at  Ephesus;  and  in  the  second  epistle  we  find  Timothy 
put  on  his  guard  against  the  same  person:  why?  because 
Timothy's  sphere  of  duty  then  included  tiiat  city.  6.  In  the 
first  epistle,  when  Timothy  was  confessedly  at  Ephesus,  Paul 
mentions  tliis  Alexander,  and  also  Hymeneus,  as  unfaithful 
ministers  ;  and  in  the  second  he  again  names  those  very  per- 
sons to  Timothy  in  the  same  character;  which  implies  tliat 
Timothy  was  still  in  authority  in  that  church.  (1  Tim.  i.  20; 
2  Tim.  ii.  17;  iv.  14.)  7.  Against  tiiis  Alexander,  a  resident  of 
Ephesus,  though  just  then  in  Rome,  opposing  virulently  the 
persecuted  Paul,  that  apostle  specially  cautions  Timothy  in  the 
second  epistle;  from  which  fact  we  gather — that  Timothy  was 
to  return  to  Ephesus,  after  visiting  Paul  in  Rome — and  was  to 
continue  in  Ephesus,  when  Alexander  had  come  back,  and  had 
resumed  his  actual  residence  there.  (2  Tim.  iv.  14,  15,  9.) 
Such  are  our  proofs  that  Timothy  was  in  Ephesus,  or  had 
charge  of  its  church  at  the  date  of  the  second  epistle.  And  we 
think  that  the  man  who  asks  more,  for  a  point  of  sacred  his- 
tory not  positively  recorded,  is  unreasonable.  Out  of  the 
sacred  records,  the  whole  ci?rrent  of  antiquity  is  well  known  to 
be  in  our  favor.  Nor  is  thee  a  particle  of  evidence  against  us. 
The  New  Testament  leaves  Timothy  in  charge  of  the  Ephesian 
church;  no  subsequent  authority  removes  him  thence;  and 
in  tliis  slate  of  things  we  recognise  plainly  a  diocese,  and 
its  diocesan  head — not  only  Episcopacy,  but  diocesan  Episco- 
pacy also. 

As  to  the  "angels"  of  the  seven  Asiatic  churches,  the  re- 
viewer is  as  unfortunate  in  discussing  their  case,  as  in  the  rest 

♦  We  take  the  common  chronology. 


EPISCOPACY   TE8TED    BY   SCRIPTURE.  261 

of  his  remarks.  He  mentions  the  tlieory,  that  the  term  "  angel  '■• 
means  ''  the  collective  ministry  in  tliose  churchts  rcspecliviiy  " 
— a  mere  theory,  and  too  fancilul  to  be  \v<ir:li  an  argument; 
for  it  may  as  well  be  extended  totiie  "collective"  coniiuunicants, 
a  theory  loo  which  decides  nothing  ;  lor  the  "'  colh-ciive  minis- 
try "  may  as  jiisily  be  said  lii  have  included  a  bish()()  jjro[jer  as 
to  have  been  witnont  one.*  Unl  further,  asks  ihe  reviewer, 
why  are  not  tlie  "angels"  called  apostles  or  bishops,  if  they 
were  such  ?  For  a  very  suflicient  reason,  we  reply.  'I'hese 
"angels"  were  addressed  just  at  the  time,  when,  as  we  learn 
from  other  sources,  the  name  of  apostle  was  about  being  relin- 
quished to  those  individuals  so  called  in  Scripture,  and  the 
name  bishop  was  in  transitu  from  the  second  order  to  tlie  first; 
the  former  title  was  losing,  or  beginning  to  lose,  its  more 
general  application;  and  the  latter  had  not  yet  acquired  its 
final  appropriation.  Those  who  allow  the  due  weigtit  to  the 
N(m-episcopal  authorities,  Videlius  for  example,  not  to  meiilioa 
those  in  our  own  ranks,  who  regard  it  as  an  historical  i'aet, 
t.hat  the  name  bishop  was  taken  from  the  second  order  and 
given  to  the  first  about  this  period,  will  see  in  these  scriptures  a 
beautiful  adminiculalion  of  tlie  testimony  of  that   fact.     '1  he 


•  Piilvcarp  was  the  bishop  or  "  angel "  of  the  chuich  in  Smyrna,  a  few  years 
after  the  date  of  tlie  Revelation,  perhaps  at  tlutt  lime;  and  lie  is  ideiiliiied  with 
his  cjiuich  by  Ignatius,  just  as  the  "angel"  is,  by  "the  Spirit,"  in  this  part 
of  Scripture.  IgnaUus  says  to  the  Sniyrneans,  (ii.)  "  It  is  fitting  that  lor  the 
honor  of  GoD,  your  church  should  appoint  some  worthy  delegate,   who   being 

come   as    far   as    Syria  ,  in:iy    rejoice  willi  them that   ye   send  some   one 

from  you."  And  to  Polycarp,  (7.)  "It  will  be  fit,  most  woitliy  Pol\c;up,  to 
call  a  council  of  the  most  godly  men,  and  choose  some  one  whom  t/e  particularly 

love and  to  appoint  him  to  go  into  Syria" — and  in  the  conclus^ion,   "  1  salute 

him  who  shall  bo  llioiight  wortliy  to  be  sent  h>j  you  into  Syria.  Grace  be  ever 
with  him,  and  with  Polvcaep,  who  sends  him."  Tliis  individual  niler  of  the 
church  at  Smyrna  is  the  one  who  dislinctively  and  responsibly  "sends"  the 
messenger,  though  the  "church,"  and  even  a  "council  "  of  its  members,  including 
doubtless  some  of  its  clergy,  the  '■  presbyters  and  deacons  "  several  limes  men- 
tioned, unite  in  the  mission.  \Vhat  better  uninspired  key  can  be  found  for  the 
epistle  of  our  Lord  to  the  "angel  of  the  church  in  Smyrna?"  and  of  course  for 
all  the  seven 7  In  regard  to  tiie  genuineness  of  the  smaller  epistles  of  Ignatius,  a_ 
plain  argument  may  perhap.=;  be  sufficient  for  those  who  are  not  in  the  habit  of 
learned  investigations.  There  are  oidy  two  sets  of  works  ascribed  to  Ignatius,  the 
smaller  epistles  and  the  larger,  which  are  generally,  if  not  uniyeisally.  allowed 
to  be  interpolated,  i.  e.  to  have  received  spurious  additions.  Now,  it  is  exceedingly 
improbable  in  the  nature  of  things,  that  u  work  of  aulhorily  should  be  counlerfeiled 
more  than  once — so  counterfeited  as  to  make  two  separate  works  largely  spurious, 
besides  the  genuine.  We  do  not  recollect  an  instance  of  the  kind.  There  is 
dilTicuIty  in  making  current  any  one  counterfeit  book,  because  the  genuine  one 
contradicts  iu  But  when  this  attempt  has  succeeded,  and  the  true  and  false 
copies  arc  l)oth  current;  then  the  dilficnlty  of  a  furlher  attempt  is  doubled,  on 
nieie  arithmetical  principles;  anil  the  improbability  of  its  being  made  is  much 
more  than  doubled,  since  there  can  be  little  motive  to  adduce  an  auilu.r  lor  a 
third  view  of  a  subject,  concerning  which  he  has  expressed,  or  lx;i;n  made  to 
express,  two  views  already — such  an  author  loses  his  aullioi  ity,  uid-ss  his 
genuine  work  Ije  restored  to  iU  exclusive  rights.  As  then  the  larger  epistles 
arc  allowed  to  he  spurious,  it  is  probable  in  the  highest  degree,  morally  cer- 
tain, that  the  smaller  epistles  are  not  spurious,  but  are  the  genuine  work  of 
Ignatius. 


262  ANSWER    TO    A    THIRD    REVIEW    OF 

dignitaries  in  question  were  addressed,  when  it  was  somewhat 
too  lale  to  call  tliem  apostles,*  and  too  soon  to  call  them 
bishops,  particularly  as  the  latter  word  iiad  a  different  m'^Hning 
ill  tlie  Scriptures  already  written.  Anoilier  designation  iiiere- 
f<»re  is  given  tiiem — they  are  called  "angels;"  and  the  kind  of 
officers  addressed  is  left  to  be  inferred  from  the  pou-ers  and 
clii^tiaclions  ascribed  to  them.  These  remarks  are  a  sufficient 
reply  to  the  armnnent  of  the  reviewer  on  this  topic;  these 
remarks,  with  what  is  said  in  our  Tract.  But  we  must  show 
him  a  couple  of  ludicrous  mistakes  into  which  he  has  fallen. 
He  quotes  from  the  address  to  the  "  angel"  at  Smyrna,  "  Some 
of  you  I  [the  Saviour']  will  cast  into  prison" — the  passage  actu- 
ally reads,  "  Behold,  the  devil  shall  cast  some  of  you  into  pri- 
son !  "  Again  :  he  regards  two  at  least  of  the  "  angels  "  as  having 
long  been  in  a  state  of  "  kikewarmness  and  sloth,"  and  adds, 
"  it  is  by  no  means  likely  that,  xinder  the  eye  of  inspired  Apos- 
tles^ men  already  in  this  state  of  moral  depression  would  have 
hfcn  selected  to  preside  over  churches:"  this  was  in  the  year 
96;  the  "inspired  Apostles"  were  long  since  dead,  except 
St.  Jolin;  and  he  was  in  Palnws,  when  these  epistles  to  the 
"angels"  were  revealed  to  him  by  our  Lord!  At  what  time 
these  "angels"  were  respectively  placed  over  their  churches,  we 
know  not;  if  by  "inspired  Apostles,"  it  must  have  been,  say 
some  twenty  or  thirty  years  before.  If,  however,  they  were  not 
so  placed  by  "  inspired  Apostles,"  then  we  have  our  Loud  himself 
recognising  the  Episcopacy  of  men  consecrated  by  apostles 
uninspired. 

Contrary  to  the  rule  which  we  had  hoped  would  be  adhered  to  in  this 
controversy,  the  reviewer  has  strayed  from  Scripture,  as  he  did  with  regard 
to  deacons,  and  carried  the  question  concerning  bishops  into  the  writings 
of  the  fathers.  Our  lore  in  this  department  is  of  very  moderate  amount; 
but  it  fortunately  does  not  require  much  to  answer  this  reviewer.  AVhat  he 
ascribes  to  Ignatius  is  not  correct — that  that  father  declares,  "again  and 
again,  that  the  presbyters  sitcceecZ  in  the  place  of  the  Apostles  " — such  lan- 
guage occurs  nowhere  in  Ignatius.  He  'never  says  that  presbyters 
"succeed"  the  Apostles,  nor  docs  he  compare  them  to  the  Apostles, 
except  under  the   reservation   that  the  bishop   is  compared  to  a   higher 


*  Ttie  false  "apostlos"  mentioned  CRev.  ii.  2.)  would  naturally  persist  in  claim- 
ing tlie  old  title:  that  of  bishops  would  not  yet  have  served  their  purpose.  It  is 
periiaps  worthy  of  remark,  that  the  woid  "apostle"  occurs  nowhere  in  the  gospel 
of  .St.  John  ;  '■  disciple  "  being  ffeneraliy  siibslitnted  for  it.  Neither  does  it  ociur  in 
liis  epistles  :  nor  in  the  Revelation  ;  e.vcept  in  this  passage,  where  it  is  npplied  to 
t!ie  impostors,  and  in  chap,  xviii.  20.  where,  ingrafted  into  an  exnltalion  of  the 
latter  days,  it  refers  (as  in  xxi.  14.)  to  the  inspired  founders  of  Christianity. 
All  these  writings  belong  to  the  close  of  the  first  century.  By  not  calling  the 
'•  angels  "  either  apostles  or  bishops,  St.  John  conforn>ed  to  the  then  unsettled  use 
of  those  words.  And  by  calling  the  twelve  "disciples"  only,  instead  of  apostles, 
he  avoided  giving  thein  a  distinctive  title  which  he  withheld  from  their  official 
comnecrs,  the  "angels."  We  build  nothing  on  these  ficts  and  e.tplanations ;  but 
they  certainly  harmonize  well  with  the  historical  declaration,  that  ministers  of  the 
episcopal  grade  were  originally  called  apo.stles  ;  but  as  the  first  century  was  passing 
icto  the  j-icond,  that  name  was  relinquished  and  that  of  bishops  assumed. 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY    SCRIPTURE.  263 

authority.  As  an  Oriental,  he  uses  strong  figures;  but  his  meaning 
cannot  be  mistaken  by  any  candid  reader;  and  for  such  we  quote  what  he 
does  say,  the  passaires  ot' which  the  reviewer  gives  this  perverted  represen- 
tation. We  use  Arclibishop  Wake's  translation,  revised  by  Mr.  Chcvaliier. 
"  I  exhort  you  that  ye  study  to  do  all  things  in  a  divine  concord : 
your  bisliop  presiding  in  the  place  of  God,  and  your  })resbyters  in  the 
place  of  the  council  ot"  the  Apostles,  and  your  deacons,  most  dear  to  me, 
being  intrusted  with  the  ministry  of  Jksus  Christ."  (Magnes.  G.) 

'•  It  is  therefore  necessary  that  ye  do  nothing  without  your  bishop, 
even  as  ye  are  wont:  and  that  ye  be  also  subject  to  the  presbytery  as 
to  the  Apostles  of  Jesi's  Christ,  our  hope,  in  wliom  if  we  walk,  we  shall 
be  found  (in  him.)  The  deacons  also,  as  being  the  (ministers)  of  the 
mysteries  of  Jescs  Christ,  must  by  all  means  please  all.''  (Tral.  2.) 

"  In  like  manner,  let  all  reverence  the  deacons  as  Jesus  Christ,  and 
the  bishop  as  the  Father ;  and  the  presbyters  as  the  council  of  God, 
and  the  assembly  of  the  Apostles.  Without  these  there  is  no  church." 
(Tral.  3.) 

"  See  that  ye  all  follow  your  bishop,  as  Jesus  Christ  the  Father;  and 
the  presbyters  as  the  A])ostles  ;  and  reverence  tlie  deacons  as  the  command 
of  Gon.  Let  no  one  do  any  thing  which  belongs  to  the  Church  separately 
from  the  bishop."  (Sniyrn.  8.) 

"  Fleeing  to  the  Gospel,  as  to  the  flesh  of  Christ,  and  to  the  Apostles 
as  unto  the  presbytery  of  the  Church.  Let  us  also  love  the  prophets, 
forasmuch  as  they  also  proclaimed  the  coming  of  the  Gospel,  and  hoped  in 
Christ,  and  waited  for  him."  (Philad.  5.) 

Here  are  all  the  passages  on  which  the  reviewer  could  possibly  have 
based  his  assertion — all — and  they  neither  say  nor  intimalc  any  thing 
about  "  succession."  That  word  is  u.sed  for  either  succession  in  doctrine, 
or  succession  by  vicarious  ordination,  both  of  which,  when  absolute  jiredi- 
catcs,  imply  supreme  authority  in  the  successors.  And  Ignatius  would 
have  written  like  a  simpleton,  if  he  had  ascribed  apostolic  succession  to  the 
presbyters,  when  he  declared,  as  he  did  in  these  extracts,  the  bishop  to  be 
superior  to  them.  But  he  says  not  a  vord  of  the  succession  of  ])rcsby- 
ters;  on  the  contrary,  he  invariably,  not  only  in  these,  but  in  many  other 
passaires,  places  the  bishop  above  that  class  of  ministers,  as  well  as  above 
the  deacons:  and  this  la  fatal  to  tlie  notion  of  Presbytcrial  succession. 
The  reviewer  has  staked  his  reputation,  in  more  than  one  sense,  in  the 
bold  assertion  he  has  here  made. 

Just  as  little  to  the  purpose  is  his  allusion  to  Clement  of  Rome.  He 
speaks  of  j)resbyters,  says  the  reviewer,  as  "  the  rulers  of  the  Church." 
JS'ot  exactly — only  as  the  rulers  of  ^'\.\\e  flock  of  Christ;"  he  never 
intimates  that  they  ruled  the  clergy.  On  the  contrary,  ho  addresses  a 
Christian  church— that  at  Corinth — to  this  ell'ect,  on  the  suliject  of  their 
"  holv  oflerings."     And  the  address  is  a  full  recognition  of  Episcopacy. 

"God  hath  himself  oniained  by  his  supreme  will  both  where  and 
by  what  persons  they  are  to  be  performed  .....*...  I- or  to  the  rliirf  priest 
his  peculiar  offices  are  given,  and  to  the  priests  their  own  place  is 
appointed,  and  to  the  Leritcs  appertain  their  projier  ministries.  And  the 
layman  is  confined  within  the  bounds  of  what  is  commanded  to  laymen. 
Let  every  one  of  you,  brethren,  bless  God  in  his  proper  station,  with  a 
pood  conscience,  and  with  all  gravity,  not  exceeding  the  rule  of  his  service 
that  is  appointed  -unto  him."  (10,  11.) 

If  Christians  had  not  //icu  chief  yiriest,  their  priests,  and  their  Levites, 
there  would  be  no  sense  iu  this  admonition  of  Clement's. 

The  reviewer's  appeal  to  Irenxus  is  as  unfortunate— he  '•  roi)eatedly 


264  ANSWER   TO   A   THIRD   REVIEW   OF 

speaks  of  presbyters  as  being  successors  of  the  Apostles."  True;  but 
what  sort  of  presbyters  1  for  the  word,  as  we  have  seen,  has  a  general 
meaning,  including  ajwstles  and  bishops  proper,  as  well  as  those  who  are 
only  presbyters  proper.  Irenreus  calls  the  presbyters  of  whom  he  writes, 
'•bishops,"  and  allows  only  one  of  them  at  a  lime  in  a  city  or  district,  even 
in  the  large  city  of  Rome  ;  which  shows  them  lo  have  been  apostle  bishops, 
superior  to  the   presbyter-bishops.     Let  him  speak  for  himself 

"  We  can  enumerate  those  who  were  appointed  by  the  Apostles  bishops 

in  the  churches,  and  their  successors  even  to  us whom  tiiey  [the 

Apostles]   left  their  successors,   delivering  to  litem   their  o\cn  place  of 

government The    blessed    Apostles,  therefore,    founding   and 

instructing  the  church  [of  Rome,]  delivered  to  Linus  [one  man]  the  admi- 
nistration of  its  bishopric.  Paul  makes  mention  of  this  Linus  in  the 
epistles  to  Timothy.  To  him  succeeded  Anacletus,  {one  man,]  alter  him, 
in  the  third  place  from  the   Apostles,  Clement  [one  man\   oLitaincd  the 

bishopric To  this  Clement  succeeded  Evaristus  [one  man  ;]  and 

to  Evaristus,  Alexander  [one  man  ;]  and  then  Sixtus  [one  man\  was 
appointed,  the  sixth  [individxial]  from  the  Apostles;  and  after  him  'I'eles- 
phorue  [one  man,'\  who  likewise  suffered  martyrdom  most  gloriously  ;  atid 
then  Hyginus  [one  man,]  then  Pius  [one  man,]  after  whom  Anicetus 
[one  man.]  And  when  Soter  [one  man]  had  succeeded  Anicetus,  now 
Eleutherus  [one  man]  has  the  bishopric  in  the  twelfth  place  from  the 
Apostles.  By  this  order  [or  scries  raUi]  and  instruction,  that  tradition 
in  the  Church  which  is  from  the  Apostles,  [meaning  Scripture,  see 
/  3,  c.  1,]  and  the  preaching  of  the  truth  hath  come  even  unto  us." 
(L.  3,  r.  3.) 

"  We  ouwht  to  hear  those  presbyters  in  the  Church  who  have  the 
succession,  as  we  have  shown,  from  the  Apostles  :  who  with  the  succession 
of  the  episcopate  received  the  gift  of  truth,  according  to  the  good  pleasure 
of  the  Father."  (L.  4,  c.  43.) 

If  IrenEUs  had  meant  presbyters  proper,  could  he  have  said,  as  he 
does,  that  he  could  "  enumerate  those  who  were  appointed  by  the  Apostles 
bishops  in  the  churches,  and  their  successors  even  to  us" — "the  succes- 
sions of  all  the  churches  1"— each  and  every  such  presbyter,  who  had 
officiated  in  each  and  every  supposed  ordaining  "presbytery"  in  all  the 
world!  say  some  twenty  to  fifty  thousand  of  them!  The  idea  is  prepos- 
terous. iNo:  he  intended  one  minister  in  each  city  or  district— that  one 
who  was  called  bishop — that  one  to  whom  the  "  Apostles  "  and  their 
successors  "  delivered  their  own  place  of  government  "  And  lh:it  this  one 
man  had  presbyters  under  him  is  self  evident  in  the  case  of  Rome,  which 
is  denominated  by  Irenreus  "the  greatest  church:"  iin})lying  that  it  had 
many  congregations  and  pastors.  It  is  proved  also,  by  testimony,  in  the 
case  of  Polycarp,  who  is  dechired  by  this  father  to  have  been  "appointed 
by  the  Apostles,  bishop  of  the  church  of  Smyrna,"  and  who  connnences  his 
epistle  thus — "  Polycarp  and  the  presbyters  that  are  with  him."  Of  this 
epistle  Irenaeus  speaks ;  and  we  thus  learn,  as  from  himself,  what  kind  ot 
eccle,siastical  officers  he  referred  to  as  "successors  to  the  Apostles."  They 
were  Episcopal  bishops. 

We  go  no  further  into  the  extra-scriptural  argument,  be  it  noticed, 
than  we  are  led  by  the  reviewer.  1  he  reader  who  wishes  to  j.rosecute 
this  branch  of  the  subject,  will  find  it  ably  treated  in  Potter  and  Slater, 
whose  works  have  been  reprinted  in  this  country,  and  in  Bowden  and 
Cooke,  as  republished  in  the  "  Works  on  EpiscoiJiicy,"  by  the  New- York 
Protestant  Episcopal  Pre.«=s  The  Answer  of  Dr.  Cooke  to  a  Review  of  his 
essay  in  the  Biblical  Repertory,  should  also  be  consulted. 


El'ISCOPACV    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  205 

Of  the  peroration  of  the  reviewer,  his  last  four  paragrapiis, 
wc  need  only  say  that  it  is  a  mere  tissue  of  positiveness.  W  e  have 
neither  tlie  taste  nor  the  talent  for  this  kind  of  effusion,  or  we 
could  take  these  paragrapiis,  and  send  them  back  upon  iiim, 
viulads  mutandis — as  indeed  we  could  do  witli  no  small  por- 
tion of  his  whole  article.  It  is  throughout  so  replete  with  mere 
assertions,  pronounced  in  the  most  dogmatical  tone,  tiiat  one 
need  only  change  the  things  asserted,  and  it  would  be  quite  as 
good  for  Episcopacy  as  it  is  against  it — nay,  fen-  auglit  we  can 
perceive,  a  little  ingenuity  in  this  way,  would  make  it  a  tirade 
for  or  against  Popery,  for  or  against  Independency,  for  or  agauist 
monarchy,  for  or  against  republicanism,  for  or  against  transub- 
stantidtiun,  for  or  against  the  Hebrew  points,  for  or  against  any 
thing  ever  disputed  among  men.  As  to  the  small  amount  of 
argmnent  it  does  contain,  we  trust  we  have  sufficiently  disposed 
of  it.  That  such  a  review  has  done  our  Tract  no  injury,  may, 
we  hope,  be  affirmed  by  us,  without  incurring  the  charge  of 
egotism.  We  even  indulge  ourselves  in  tlie  belief,  that  that 
little  production  has  come  out  of  the  ordeal  prepared  for  it 
stronger  than  it  was  before — stronger  we  say,  because  the  fact 
certainly  adds  to  its  strength,  that  the  learned  "  Association  of 
Gentlemen  in  Princeton,"  have  found  nothing  belter  against  it 
than  this  very  dictatorial  but  very  harmless  review. 

23  H.  U.  O. 


DISSERTATION 

ON    THE 

FALSE  APOSTLES  MEx\TIONED  IN  SCRIPTURE. 


The  case  of  the  "  f;ilse  apostles  "  has  an  important  hearing 
on  tlie  subject  of  Epi:<copacy.  We  ^rgiie  conclusively,  Ironi 
tiieir  case — lliat  others  besides  the  special  witnesses  of  the  resur- 
reciion  of  Christ  were  apostles — that  lliere  were  vianij  apostles 
proper  besides  these,  tlie  thirteen — that  inspiratiun  was  not 
an  essential  qualification  for  the  apostleship— and  tiial  the  ordi- 
nary apos/o^/c  (i/fice  was  extensively  recognised,  both  previously 
and  so  late  as  llie  year  96,  when  of  the  thirteen  none  survived 
but  St.  John.  These  facts  being  established,  it  will  be  suffi- 
ciently clear  that  that  office  pervaded  the  Church  at  large,  and 
was  to  be  pennanent. 

Mention  is  made  of  these  impostors  in  three  passages  of  the 
New  Testament. 

"  For  such  are  folse  apostles  x^cv^anoaToXot,  deceitful  workers,  trans- 
forming themselves  into  the  apostles  of  Chkist.  And  ru<  marvel;  for 
Satan  liimself  is  transformed  into  an  angel  of  light.  Therefore  it  is  no 
great  thing  if  his  ministers  also  be  transformed  as  the  ministers  of  right- 
eousness ;  whose  end  shall  be  according  to  their  works."  (2  Cor. 
xi.  13-15.)  The  word  "minister.s"  is  SiaKovoi. 

"  Ihou  hast  tried  them  which  say  they  are  apostles  airoaroXouf,  and  are 
not,  and  hast  found  them  liars,  \j,',v6eti."  (Rev.  ii.  2.) 

'■  An  apostle,  not  uf  av'  men,  neither  by  man,  but  by  Jesus  Christ." 
(Gal.  i.  1.; 

We  can  imagine  but  four  ways  in  which  the  persons  alluded 
to  can  have  pretended  to  be  "apostles" — as  special  inln esses 
of  the  resurrection  of  Chhist— as  being,  not  apostles  proper,  of 
whom  we  affirm  there  were  many,  but  "  messeng-ers^"  so  called 
— as  having  apostolic  plenary  inspiration,  like  the  thirteen — 
or,  as  possessing  the  apostolic  office;  not  mere  presbytership, 
as  we  shall  prove  ;  but  the  episcopate  proper.  On  each  of 
these  four  views  of  their  case  we  ofler  some  remarks. 

1.  The  theory  that  the  "  false  apostles"  churned  to  be  special 
witnesses  of  Cnmsr's  resurrectior  is  not  held,  in  terms,  by  any 
writer  that  we  know  oi ;  yet  i  must  be  tacitly  allowed  by 
those  who  think  they  pretended  to  he  apostles  proper,  and  that 
none  could  be  such  but  the  special  witnesses.  Such  a  fancy, 
however,  will  not  bear  the  least  investigation.  There  were 
only  thirteen  of  these  witnesses  at  most — at  least  one  of  them, 
James  the  Greater,  was  dead  when  Paul  wrote  to  the  Corin- 
vliians   against  the    |)relenders,  A.   D.  GO— at  least  one    other 

(   267   ) 


268  DISSERTATION    ON   THE    FALSE    APOSTLES 

Paul,  was  personally  known  to  tliat  church,  and  no  one  could 
have  there  feigned  to  be  that  apostle — of  the  cUibL  of  some,  if 
not  all  of  thj  rest,  lliey  were  doubtless  apprized  ;  and  the 
chance  of  an  impostor's  being  taken  for  either  of  them  must 
have  been  too  small  to  allow  any  hope  of  success:  add  to  this, 
that  Tilus  had  lately  been  in  Corinth  ;  he  knew  several  of  the 
thirteen,  and  his  testimony  on  such  a  question  of  personal 
identity  would  iiave  been  final.  When,  again,  these  impostors 
are  mentioned  at  the  later  period,  A.  D.  96,  only  St.  John  was 
living;  and  as  it  was  impossible  for  any  pretender  to  pass 
liimself  as  that  one  surviving  special  witness  of  the  resurrec- 
tion, so  was  it  perfectly  absurd  for  several  to  make  the  attempt. 
Tills  character,  therefore,  the  "false  apostles"  did  not  claim. 
Of  course  there  were  o^Ae/- apostles  besides  the  special  witnesses, 
with  whom  they  endeavored  to  rank  themselves. 

2.  Equally  untenable  is  tiie  supposiiion,  evading  the  fact  of 
there  having  been  many  apostles  proper,  that  they  pretended  to 
be  "  messengers,''''  so  called,  or  apostles  not  in  ttie  appropriate 
sense.  Twice  only  are  these  expressly  named,  "the  messengers 
of  the  churches,"  "  Epaphrodilus,  your  messenger."  (2  Cor. 
viii.  23 ;  Philip,  ii.  25.)  Not  a  few  writers  contend  for  the  trans- 
lation "apostle"  in  both  these  places,  in  its  appropriate  mean- 
iuiz — fatal  to  the  notion  that  "  messengership "  was  all  these 
impostors  claimed.  Taking,  however,  the  translation  as  it 
stands,  we  find  there  were  "messengers"  sent  by  churches  to 
St.  Paul.  And  we  will  allow,  though  we  do  not  find  it  in 
Scripture,  that  messengers  may  have  been  sent  by  one  church 
to  another  church.  We  further  notice,  that  Paul  despatched 
persons  whom  we  may  call  messengers,  to  both  churches  and 
individuals;  as  Tychicus  to  the  Ephesiaus  and  to  Timothy, 
Epapliroditus  to  the  Philippians,  Timothy  and  Erastus  to  Mace- 
donia, Onesimus  to  the  Colossians  and  to  Philemon,  Phebe  to 
the  Romans,  &c.  Now,  in  regard  to  the  first  class  of  these 
persons,  it  is  clear  that  no  one  would  pretend  to  be  the  "  mes- 
senger" of  a  church  to  an  inspired  apostle,  who  could  instantly 
detect  the  fraud.  In  regard  to  the  next  class;  it  is  evident  that 
a  messenger  from  one  church  to  another,  if  there  were  such 
apiiointments,  could  not  have  had  the  least  authority  over  the 
latter  body  ;  the  mission  must  have  been  one  of  benevolence 
only,  or  of  courtesy  :  in  other  words,  there  was  no  motive  to 
simulate  the  character.  And  in  regard  to  the  third  class ;  it  is 
obvious,  that  when  even  a  looman  was  one  of  the  messengers 
whom  St.  Paul  sent,  and  to  tiie  great  church  in  Rome,  there 
could  have  been  nothing  in  the  function  to  excite  the  ambition 
of  pretenders.  If  it  be  further  alleged,  that  some  of  P-auTs 
messengers  were  commissioned  to  rectify  disorders  in  churches, 
and  that  "false"  messengers  claimed  a  kindred  authority,  we 
reply,  that  such  functionaries  could  only  be  sent  by  those 
thirteen  principal  Apostles,  who,  individually,  had  authority 
over  all  churches  ;  so  that  a  successful  claim  to  such  a  mission 


*  MENTIONED   IN   SCRIPTURE.  269 

could  scarcely  have  been  made  at  any  time,  and  certainly  was 
next  U)  iinpos-i!)le  wlien  only  St.  Jolin  remained.  We  lhini<, 
Itierefore,  lluit  lliis  second  liieory  of  tiie  "  false  apostlesliip  "  is 
baseless.  Indeed  we  are  not  aware  that  any  one  expressly 
maintains  it:  yet,  as  it  is  the  only  iiypothesis  left  to  those  wlio 
confine  tlie  proper  apostlesliip  to  the  special  witnt!sses  of  our 
Lord's  resnrri'ciion,  we  have  deemed  it  worthy  of  refutation. 

Let  the  reader  now  mark  the  results  of  what  we  have  thus 
far  presented.  Tiie  impostors  before  us  did  not  pretend  to  he 
mere  "messengers,"  but  apostles  proper;  and  they  did  not 
make  this  pretension  as  special  witnesses  of  the  resurrection  of 
the  Saviour.  They  would  not,  however,  claim  an  ol!ice  wliich  did 
not  exist :  therefore,  there  were  apostles  proper  who  wei  e  not  of 
liie  number  of  the  special  witnesses.  Neither  would  they  have 
claimed  an  office  that  was  not  common  enough  to  give  their  im- 
p(»sturea  reasonable  chance  of  success:  therefore,  there  were  wr/;/^ 
apostles  proper  besides  the  thirteen  who  were  first  in  the  ollice. 
There  were  many  such  apostles  proper  in  the  year  58,  when  both 
their  existence  and  that  of  pretenders  to  the  station,  as  will 
hereafter  be  seen,  was  recognised  in  the  epistle  to  the  Galalians 
— many  such  in  the  year  61),  when  the  Corinthians  were  cau- 
tioned against  persons  wlio  falsely  usurped  the  character — 
many  such  about  the  year  90,  when  "the  angel  of  the  ciiurch 
of  Ephesus"  iiad  "  tried  "  and  convicted  some  of  the  false  ones. 
Can  any  reasonable  man  ask  stronger  proof  that  apostles  pro- 
per were  intended  to  be  spread  over  the  Church  generally,  and 
lo  be  retained  in  it  permanently  ? 

3.  In  some  of  tlie  foregoing  arguments  we  have  a  strong 
presumption  against  the  tliird  hypothesis — thai  the  "  false 
apostles"  pretended  to  have,  like  the  thirteen,  plenarij  inspira- 
tion. The  lower  kinds  of  inspiration  were  claimed  by  the 
"false  prophets;"'  but  these  otiier  impostors,  if  they  claimed 
inspiration  as  "  apostles,"  must  have  arrogated  ihefull  measure. 
But  this  seems  very  improbable,  as  there  were  onlj'  eleven  at 
first,  and  only  two  others  afterward,  wdio  had  the  genuine  claim 
of  this  sort :  and  for  the  impostors  to  allege  that  they  were  of  the 
eleven,  would  have  been  madness,  particularly  wiien  only  one 
of  the  eleven  survived  ;  and  to  assert  that  they,  like  the  only 
other  two  plenarily  inspired  apostles,  Matthias  and  Paul,  had 
been  thus  added  to  the  eleven,  would  have  indicated  rather  an 
unreflecting  audacity,  tlian  cool  and  calculating  artifice.  Besides 
the  thirteen,  only  two  are  known  to  have  been  thus  inspired, 
Mark  and  Luke,  which  shows  that  such  persons  were  not  nume- 
rous enough  to  encourage  pretenders :  and  these  two  are  not 
called  apostles,  which  further  shows,  that  even  plenary  inspi- 
ration did  not  imply  apostlesliip;  so  that  tiie  impostors  could 
not  have  relied  on  this  pretence  alone,  but  must  have  alleged 
other  grounds  for  their  claim.  And  this  brings  us  to  the  result, 
that  the  criterion  of  apostleship  proper  was  something  ddferent 
from  inspiration,  as  it  was  from  the  being  a  special  witness — 
23* 


270  DISSERTATION    ON   THE   FALSE   APOSTLES 

men  might  have,  and  did  have  this  office,  without  either  o 
these  qiuilificalions.  Tliis  is  a  sufficient  disproof  of  the  theory 
now  before  us. 

As,  however,  it  is  respectably  supported  by  commentators,  we 
shall  add  some  further  remarks  on  tlie  opinion  that  the  pre- 
tenders arrogated  full  inspiration  as  tlie  basis  of  tlieir  alleged 
aposlleship.  Such  a  counterfeit  implying  the  rankest  spiritual 
ambition,  it  would  have  been  more  consistent  wiili  tlieir  evil 
purpose  to  assume  independent  chieftainship,  and  pretend  to  be 
Christ,  with  unlimited  aulliority,  than  to  claim  only  ihe  de- 
pendent chieftainship,  which  would  be  fettered  by  ChrisiianUy 
as  already  revealed,  and  by  the  rights  of  those  of  the  iuliy 
inspired  thirteen  who  might  come  in  contact  with  them; 
Accordingly,  we  read  in  history  (Josephus)  of  various  fai.se 
Christs,  but  nowliere  of  false  apostles  who  aspired  to  apostolic 
plenary  inspiration.  Tiiis  latter  assertion  we  make  on  the 
indirect  anthority  of  Hammond,  who  regards  Cerinlhus  as  a 
false  apostle,  without  mentioning  any  oiliers.  For  tiiis  ciiar- 
acter  of  Cerinthiis,  he  quotes  Caius  in  Eusebius,  who,  iiowever, 
does  not  state  that  Cerinlhus  claimed  to  be  himself  an  apostle, 
but  only  that  he  "  pretended  revelations  written  by  some  great 
apostle,  w$  vTzo  airoaroXov  ittya>ov,  and  related  prodigious  narrations 
as  showed  him  by  angels."  Tiiis  being  the  only  case  given  by 
Hammond,  we  presume  no  other  was  to  be  found.*  And  this, 
obviously,  was  not  a  case  of  arrogating  apostolic  inspiration, 
but  only  of  passing  a  counterfeit  revelation  ascribed  to  some 
other  person  as  a  "  great  apostle,"  probably  one  of  the  "  prime" 
or  primary  ones,  as  Hammond  argues.  As  to  the  alleged 
agency  of  "angels"  in  showing  him  '-wonderful  things,"  such 
a' pretension  ptit  Cerinlhus  below  the  false  prophets,  in  the 
claim  of  inspiration,  and  of  course  far  below  the  sort  of  false 
apostles  here  supposed;  for  the  true  Christian  "prophets" 
held  direct  communication  with  God,  though  not  of  the 
plenary  kind.  (See  Hammond  on  Rev.  ii.  2,  note  a,  and 
Cruse's  Eusebius,  p.  113.)  Cerinlhus  was  one  of  the  chief 
pretenders  who  professed  to  keep  within  the  Christian  pale; 
and  if  he  did  not  claim  apostolic  inspiration,  it  is  highly  proba- 
ble no  other  pretender  did,  and  infinitely  improbable  that  so 
many  did  as  to  justify,  in  that  sense,  the  broad  denunciation  of 
"  false  apostles,"  and  the  broad  allusion  to  "  them  which  say 
they  are  apostles,  and  are  not." 

f'urther:  if  apostolic  plenary  inspiration  had  been  counter- 
feited in  that  age,  we  might  expect  the 'counterfeit  to  be  in- 
cluded in  the  warning  against  the  untrue  "spirits;"  but  this  is 


*  Poole's  Synopsis,  on  Rev.  ii.  2,  quotes  Parens  for  Ebion's  being  a  "  false 
prophet:"  whether  "  filse  apostle"  is  meant  we  do  not  knovv.  The  existence  of 
such  a  person  is  doubtful.  Mosheim's  lemaiks  are  to  this  effect.  Eusebius 
does  not  mention  him,  tliongli  Milner,  we  suppose  inadvertently,  says  he  does 
If  there  weie  ever  such  a  person,  it  does  not  appear  that  he  claimed  plenary 
inspiration. 


MENTIONED  IN   SCRIPTURE.  271 

not  the  case;  on  the  contrary,  the  only  warning  is  against 
"false  prophets,"  or  pretenders  to  the  lower  kinds  of  inf.j)ira- 
tion.  St.  John,  thirty  vears  after  St.  Paul  had  denounced  the 
"false  apostles,"  and  ouly  six  years  before  doing  so  himself, 
makes  no  allusion  whatever  to  them,  in  his  caution  concerning 
the  "'spirits;"  and  the  omission  is  unaccountable  on  the  hypo- 
thesis tiiat  they  claimed  to  be  "spirits"  of  apostolic  pre- 
eminence— ■'■  Beloved,  believe  not  every  spirit, "  but  try  the 
spirits  whether  they  are  of  God;  because  m>n\y  false  prophets 
are  gone  out  into  the  world  "—only  "false  prophets,"  not  false 
apostles  in  the  guise  of  "spirits."  Surely  the  greater  impos- 
ture, had  it  existed,  would  have  been  exposed  with  the  less. 
The  unavoidable  inference  is,  therefore,  that  liie  greater  exL-ted 
not — in  other  words,  there  were  none  who  claimed  falsely 
apostolic  plenary  inspiration — the  "  false  apostles "  were  nut 
8uch  in  this  sense. 

4.  We  know  of  but  one  other  sense  in  which  tlie  pretence  to 
aposlleship  could  have  been  raised — it  must  have  been  that  of 
possessing  the  apostolic  office — that  of  being  apostles  proper  h\ 
the  Christian  ministry.  For  this  view  of  the  case  there  are 
several  arguments.  1.  It  is,  so  far  as  we  can  perceive,  the  only 
explanation  left  us;*  the  other  theories  being  untenable.  2.  It 
agrees  with  the  points  established  in  the  last  paragraph  of  our 
second  head,  and  in  the  first  of  our  third  head,  that  there  were 
aposiles  proper  who  were  not  of  the  thirteen — many  of  them; 
and  these  as  a  general  and  permanent  feature  in  the  Church — 
apostles  proper,  who,  being  neither  special  witnesses,  nor  plena- 
nly  inspired,  nor  inspired  in  any  extraordinary  manner,  could 
only  have  been  such  in  the  ordinary  official  or  ministerial  char- 
acter. 3.  It  agrees  with  the  scriptural  fact,  that  there  were 
aposiles  proper,  not  of  the  thirteen,  not  special  witnesses,  not 
having  plenary  inspiration,  as  Barnabas,  Silvaiius  and  Timothy, 
Andronicus  and  Junta;  and  with  the  scriptural  intimation  that 
aposiles  proper  were  at  least  somewhat  numerous,  "arc  all 
apostles?"  4.  Paul  contrasts  the  "false  apostles''  with  those 
who  were  apostles  among  the  "ministers  of  righteousness,"  as 
will  be  seen  on  recurring  to  our  first  quotation,  i.  e.  with  tliose 
who  held  apostolic  rank  in  the  Christian  ministry  :  it  was  as 
"ministers"  that  they  counterfeited  tlie  aposlleship,  not,  so  far 
as  api)ears,  as  men  extraordinarily  endowed  ;  they  may  perlmps 
have  claimed  the  lower  inspiration,  and  so  liave  been  "  false 


*  We  have  not  deemed  worthy  of  notice  liie  opinion  that  the  false  aposlleship 
Was  claimed  on  the  pretence  of  beins^  sent  by  Chiust  peisonally,  whellior  tx;tine 
«r  .nfter  his  ascension,  it  is  a  very  weak  notion.  If  it  regard  a  siiii|ile  mission 
\y  Christ,  as  the  one  criterion  of  the  aposlleship,  it  is  conirad  cted  by  tlie  case 
of  tlie  seventy,  sent  by  him,  yet  not  apostles;  and  by  the  Ciiscs  of  Matthias, 
Barnabas,  Silvanus,  Timothy,  Andronicns,  Junia,  not  sent  by  him,  yet  aposth'S. 
If  it  do  not  regaid  this  as  the  one  criterion,  it  leaves  the  nature  of  the  apustlesliip 
umJelined,  ant  so  settles  nothing  concerning  the  position  assumed  in  the  Church 
by  tlie  "  false  apostles." 


272  DISSERTATION    ON   THE   FALSE   Al'OSTLES  ■ 

prophets"  likewise;  more  probably,  they  introduced  false  tra- 
ditions under  the  iiigli  authority  they  assumed,  or  gave  here- 
tical glosses  and  explanations  of  the  true  Gospel.  5.  '1  he  same 
(piotaiion  shows  that  they  pretended  to  aposileship  as  •'  work- 
ers "  or  workmen:  they  were  'deceitful  workmen;"  not  like 
I'imothy,  '■'■workmen  that  needed  not  to  be  ashamed,  rightiy 
dividing  the  word  of  truth;"  they  pretended  to  be  "spiritual 
workmen  or  laborers,"  (see  Parkliurst,)  in  other  words,  minis- 
ters of  the  Gospel ;  not  the  passive  channels  of  a  new  revelation, 
but  laborers  in  the  one  already  given  ;  and  such  in  the  apostolic 
character.  6.  'J'he  declaration,  in  tlie  same  passage,  "whose 
e/u/  shall  be  according  to  their  works,"  is  parallel  with  that  of 
Si.  Jude,  "  and  perished  in  the  gainsaying  of  Core :  "  the  sin  of 
Korah  was  chiefly  the  assumption  of  the  priesthood;  as  occur- 
ring in  the  time  of  Jude,  that  kind  of  '•  gainsaying"  must  have 
meant  the  assumotion  of  the  Christian  ministry  ;  and  the  impos- 
tors before  us  assumed  that  ministry  under  the  pretence  of 
being  "  apostles:"  but  they  were  to  "  perish  "  for  their  impiety, 
their  "end  would  be  according  to  their  works" — the  parallel- 
ism seems  complete — and  it  shows  that  the  apostleship  they 
counterfeited  was  ministerial,  official — it  was  the  aposileship 
proper,  with  its  ordinary  rights  and  functions. 

At  this  point  of  our  argument,  we  bring  into  fuller  notice  the 
third  passage  relating  to  these  impostors — "An  apostle,  not  of 
air,men,  neitlier  by  man,  but  by  Jesus  Christ."  An  apostle  "of 
men  "  was  one  who  had  only  human  authority — an  apostle  "by 
man  "  was  one  set  apart  by  human  ordainers  who  had,  and  who 
conferred  the  divine  commission,  the  ordainers  being  the  autho- 
rized agents  of  our  Lord — an  apostle  by  "Jesus  Christ"  was 
one  set  apart  by  Christ  himself.  (See  Aretius,  Poole's  Synop., 
and  Annot.,*  Doddridge,  and  Parkliurst  on  aizo.)  There  were 
three  classes  of  men,  therefore,  who  were  called  "apostles" — 
those  without  the  divine  commission,  or  "false  apostles" — 
those  commissioned  by  Christ  indirectly,  through  the  agency  of 
his  commissioned  ministers — and  those  commissioned  by  Christ 
in  person.  And  these  three  classes  were  eqtuiUy  designated 
"apostles;"  the  last  two,  justly;  the  first,  without  a  right  to 
the  appellation.  In  other  words,  the  apostles  "  of  men  "  pre- 
tended to  have  the  same  office,  and  the  apostles  "  by  man  "  had 
the  same  office,  VI \i\\  the  apostles  "  by  Jesus  Christ."  To  be  a 
special  witness  of  the  resurrection  was  not  requisite,  neither 
was  inspiration  requisite  for  this  office ;  and  the  mere  function 
of  a  "  messenger  "  can  as  little  be  predicated  of  the  two  other 
classes,  as  of  the  principal  class  to  which  the  eleven  and  Paul 
belonged.  This  text  is  a  clear  and  final  proof  that  the  apostle- 
ship proper  was  to  be  transmitted  by  succession,  and  was  so* 


*  Aretins,  on  Gal.  i.  1,  allows  Timothy  and  some  others  to  havn  had  t)ie  title 
"apostle;"  and  P(X)le's  Synopsis  and  Annotations  allow  the  same  in  the  case  of 
Silas  :  their  authority  can  only  be  1  Thess.  ii.  C. 


MENTIONED   IN   SCRIPTURE.  273 

transmitted  ;  as  is  obvious  in  the  phrase  "an  apostle  by  man  :" 
anil  tills  was  the  sort  of  cominissioii  counterfeited  by  the  impos- 
tors. The  rule  and  fact  of  sucli  a  succession,  and  the  false 
assumpiious  of  it,  sliow  tiiat  tlie  office  was  prevalent  in  tlie 
Church  at  large.  And  the  placing  of  this  rule  and  fact  of  apos- 
tolic succession  "by"  human  ordainers  divinely  commissioned, 
on  perpetual  record,  is  an  intimation  that  the  apostolic  office 
was  never  to  cease. 

We  think  we  have  now  established,  from  the  case  and  the 
passages  before  us,  tliat  the  apostleship,  as  an  ordinary  minis- 
terial office,  belonged  to  the  Clirisiian  priesthood  in  the  years 
58  and  63,  and  remained  In  it  till  the  year  96  ;  and  this  is  equi- 
valent 10  its  being  intended  for  permanence  in  the  Church  :  its 
intended  permanence  is  conclusively  shown  from  its  being 
transmitted  by  succession.  Perhaps  no  further  remarks  are 
necessary,  to  evince  the  support  given  by  this  fact  to  Epis- 
copacy. Lest,  however,  the  advocates  of  parity  should  say  that 
our  argument  is  incomplete — lest  they  should  allege  that  the 
apostles  proper,  in  their  permanent  character,  were  only  such 
as  their  presbyters  or  presbyter-bishops — we  shall  endeavor  to 
settle  tills  point  also. 

And  here  we  first  remark,  that  those  only  are  entitled  to 
enter  on  this  particular  portion  of  the  discussion,  who  have  aban- 
doned the  opinions,  if  they  iiave  ever  held  them,  ox  who  have 
never  maintained — tliat  the  wliole  apostolic  office  proper  was 
extraordinary  and  transient — tiiat  the  being  a  special  witness  of 
the  resurrection  of  Christ  was  an  essential  qualificallon  for  the 
apostleship  proper — that  Timothy  must  have  governed  theEphe- 
sian  clergy  as  an  "  evangelist,"  because  he  could  not  have  been  an 
apostle  proper — that  the  "  prophets  and  teachers  "  in  Acts  xlii.  1, 
whellier  tiielr  joint  work  was  an  ordination,  a  mission,  or  a 
benediction,  could  not  have  been  apostles  proper  —  that  the 
"  presbytery  "  mentioned  by  Paul,  supposing  the  word  to  mean 
a  body  of  ministers,  did  not  consist  of  apostles  proper — that 
Titus  and  the  seven  "angels"  were  not  apostles  proper  —  na}'', 
that  the  "  messengers,"  besides  being  such,  could  not  have  been 
apostles  proper.  In  other  words,  tiie  very  discussion  of  the  point 
now  b-'fore  us  Implies,  that  nenrly  the  whole  structure  of  the 
p'lfitij  argument  from  Scripture  must  be  changed;  which 
means,  that  the  old  parity  argument  must,  in  the  main,  be 
&l»aiidoned.  If  so,  what  is  left  to  Non-episcopalians  on  which 
to  base  the  parity  construction  of  the  case  of  the  "  false  apos- 
llos?"  not  much,  certainly;  perhaps  we  may  say  nothing. 
This  is  indeed  a  large  result,  but  we  are  confident  it  is  not  over- 
estimated. 

That  ttie  apostleship  claimed  by  these  pretenders  was  the 
episcopate,  and  not  mere  presbytership,  may  be  proved  by 
the  various  scriptural  arguments  whicli  show  the  distinction 
bciwcpii  the  two  offices,  and  the  superiority  of  the  former — by 
the  very  expression  "  apostles  and  elders  " — by  the  fact  that  the 


274  DISSERTATION   ON   THE   FALSE   APOSTLES 

apostles,  including  Timothy  and  Titus,  who  cannot  here  be 
denied  to  hitve  been  such,  ordained  and  governed  the  clergy, 
wiiile  there  is  no  evidence  that  mere  presbyters  did  so,  &c.  We 
need  not  recapitulate  these  topics,  or  enlarge  upon  tlieni ;  they 
are  sufficiently  developed  in  our  Tract  on  Episcopacy.  Tiie 
impostors,  assuming  the  supreme  title,  arrogaled  the  supreme 
station. 

Anotlier  proof  to  the  same  effect  is  the  declaration,  "God 
hath  set  some  in  the  Church,  Jirst,  apostles.''''  We  have  just 
seen  that  the  apostolic  office  was  continued  in  the  Church  till 
the  end  of  the  first  century,  in  its  ordinary  rights  and  functions. 
W^e  here  see  that  that  office  was  made,  by  God  himself,  "  first" 
in  the  Church.*  Now,  the  elders  or  presbyter-bishops,  being 
placed  under  other  ministers,  such  as  Timothy  and  Titus,  were 
not  "  first "  in  rank,  and  of  course  were  not  apostles.  Hence  it 
follows  inevitably  that  the  "  false  apostles"  did  not  claim  to  be 
mere  presbyters,  but  arrogated  a  higlier  office,  the  highest,  that 
of  aposlle-bisliops. 

Again:  when  Paul  exclaims,  "Am  I  not  an  apostle?"  he 
intinuiles  that  his  anostlesliip  had  been  questioned.  But  who 
would  question  his  being  a  mere  presbyter,  had  that  been  tlie 
only  grade  of  the  ministry  ?  it  would  have  been  gratuitous,  to 
deny  liim  a  rank,  with  the  "ten  thousand  instructers"  of  the 
Corinthians.  It  follows,  that  his  aposlleship  had  been  ques- 
tioned as  a  function  superior  to  that  of  ministers  generally. 
And  in  asserting  it,  he  includes  in  tiie  superior  function,  as 
appropriate  to  it,  some  of  the  ordinary  duties  of  the  ministry; 
"Are  ye  not  my  work  in  the  Lord  ?"  "The  seal  of  mine  apos- 
tlfship  are  ye  in  the  Lord:"  that  is,  the  Corinthians  had 
received  spiritual  blessings  from  him,  ordinary  in  kind,  yet 
disiinctively  such  as  an  apostle  could  confer — blessings  from 
"the  Spirit  of  the  living  God,  written  in  tlie  flesiily  tables  of 
their  heart."  To  his  imparling  such  blessings  lo  them  Paul 
appealed,  as  the  proof — of  what  7  not  of  his  being  a  mere  minis- 
ter, which  nobody  questioned — but  of  his  being  a  minister  of 
the  apostolic  grade.  It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  there  were 
ordinary  ministers  of  that  grade  besides  the  inferior  ones. 
And  the  title  assumed  by  the  "false  apostles"  shows  that  they 
counterfeited  the  superior  office.  They  claimed  the  imparting 
of  apostolic  benefits,  whether  by  means  of  preaching,  of  counsel, 
of  benedictions,    or   of  prayers,    besides   their   pretending    to 


*  Apostles  being  "first"  in  the  Ciinrch,  and  bishops  being  their  successors, 
the  instiliition  of  ai-chbisliops,  metropolitans,  patriarchs  and  popes  iiris  no  scriptural 
authority.  As  mere  liuinan  regulations,  sucli  arrangements  may,  perhaps,  (tlie 
three  former,  the  latter  claims  too  much  for  lliis  salvo,)  be  superinduced  on  tiie 
Episcopal  system,  on  tlie  same  principle  that  bishops  are  subjected  to  the  legislation 
and  the  discipline  of  the  Church.  Yet  even  in  this  view,  as  legislation  and  discipline 
are  positively  necessary  for  all  fallible  men,  while  the  setting  of  one  bishop  over  an- 
other is  never  more  than  constructively  necessary,  the  propriety  of  the  latter  is  not 
to  be  argued  from  that  of  the  former. 


MENTIONED   IN    SCRIPTURE.  275 

regulate  the   doctrines   of  the  Church.      They  arrogated    the 
riillcst  powers  tliat  have  at  any  time  heen  ascribed  to  bisliops. 

We  conclude  then,  tliat  tiie  parity  ex[)osiii()n  of  tiie  case  of 
the  •' false  apostles"  is  utterly  nnlenable.  Their  case,  as  con- 
nected with  the  collateral  illHstralions,  is,  we  think, /"a/a/  to  liie 
whole  canse  of  parity.  None  but  the  Episcopal  key  will  lit 
these  portions  of  the  sacred  volnnie — they  all  point  to  Episco- 
pacy as  their  unquestionable  record. 

II.  U.  O. 


NOTE. 

That  it  was  infinitely  improbable  that  the  "false  apostles" 
pretended  to  be  of  tlie  original  twelve  or  thirteen,  will  appear 
from  such  considerations  as  these: — There  are  sixteen  of  «)ur 
bishops  in  the  United  Slates :  but  never  has  it  been  attempted 
to  counterfeit  the  person  of  any  of  them,  either  at  liouie  or 
abroad.  So,  of  the  twenty-six  bishops  and  archbishops  in 
England — of  the  nineteen  bishops  and  archbishops  in  Ireland  — 
and  of  the  six  bishops  in  Scotland.  We  may  add  the  same 
remark,  so  far  as  we  recollect,  of  all  the  bisliops  in  the  Chris- 
tian world.  Persons  have  feiiined  to  be  bishops,  as  in  the 
case  of  West,  and  perhaps  the  Greek  mentioned  in  the  accounts 
of  .Mr.  Wesley  ;  but  none  have  counterfeited  the  persons  of  other 
bishops — if  otherwise,  the  cases  are  so  rare  and  so  obscure  as 
not  to  alfect  this  illustration  of  our  argument.  What  the  impos- 
tors mentioned  in  Scripture  claimed,  was,  to  be  apostles  or 
bishops  in  their  own  persons,  not  in  the  persons  of  any  of 
the  thirteen.  Of  course  the  apostleship  was  not  confined  to 
these  last. 

Our  fellow-citizens  generally  will  perhaps  see  more  clearly 
the  force  of  this  analogy,  in  another  case.  There  are  twenty- 
four  governors  of  Slates  in  our  Union.  In  no  instance  has  it 
occurred,  that  any  man  has  pret<Mided  to  be  one  of  tliese.  The 
same  may  probably  be  faid  of  all  our  magistrates  of  the  higher 
grades.  So  clear  is  it,  that  the  "false  apostles"  would  not 
have  pretended  to  be  of  the  original  tliirteen  who  held  tliat 
oltice — and  so  clear,  that  others  besides  the  ihirleeii  were  made 
apostles — aiany  others. 


ADDENDUM. 


In  Ayril  last,  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes  pnblislied  "  An  Triquiiy 
into  file  Organization  and  Goverrunent  of  llie  Apostolic  Cliurcli." 

As  the  principal  matter  of  this  little  volume  was  contained  in 
his  two  Reviews  of  ''  Episcopacy  tested  by  Scripture,"  it  did  not 
seem  to  require  particular  notice.  But  the  non-episcopal  press 
misconstrued  exultingiy  this  silence;  and,  in  November,  the  fol- 
lowing article  appeared  in  the  Southern  Churchman.  It  contains 
all  that  need  be  said  concerning  the  publication  mentioned. 

H.  U.  O. 

March  1844. 

l^For  the  Southern  Churchman.'] 

Mr.  Editor  : — An  editorial  article  in  your  last  number,  notices 
a  writer  in  the  Philadelphia  Christian  Observer,  who  alleges  that 
Mr.  Barnes'  late  work  against  Episcopacy,  has  been  "passed  over 
in  silence"  by  "  Episcopal  writers."  In  one  sense,  the  assertion 
as  far  as  I  know  is  correct.  In  another  sense,  ii.  is  absolutely  un- 
true. Mr.  Barnes'  late  work  is,  in  all  its  important  parts,  (except 
what  relates  to  confirmation,)  a  mere  reproduction  of  his  t'ormer 
essays  ;  and  these  were  atiswered  in  1834  and  1835,  by  Bishop 
H.  U.  Onderdonk,  and  both  sides  of  the  controversy  were  imriie- 
diately  reprinted  in  "  Episcopacy  examined  and  Re-examined." 
The  answer  to  Mr.  B's  recent  production,  was  thus  eight  or  nine 
years  older  than  the  production  itself;  it  was  in  the  hands  of 
every  one  who  had  the  volutne  containing  the  controversy ;  and 
it  is  constantly  reaching  others,  as  that  volume  is  sold  or  distrib- 
uted. Those  who  allege  that  a  fresh  supply  should  be  made  to 
arguments  already  refuted,  because  they  have  been  dressed  out 
anew,  should  consider  that  this  would  be  an  endless  affair ;  for  if 
this  production  were  answered,  Mr.  Barnes  has  only  to  issue 
another  proiluction,  and  his  friends  demand  another  answer  to 
that ;  and  so  on,  ad  wjiiiitum.  Let  it  be  understood  then,  that 
Mr.  Barnes'  two  works  are  in  substance  one,  and  that  both  are 
answered. 

On  some  accounts  it  is  fortunate  that  there  has  been  no  second 
reply.  For  though  the  argument  is  but  reiterated  in  the  latter 
essay,  there  are  other  traits  in  it  which  might  have  elicited  se- 
verity of  remark,  and  so  defaced  the  calmness  wiiicli  has  gene- 
rally been  applauded  in  this  controversy. — 1.  Mr.  Barnes  does 
not  inform  bis  readers  that  nearly  tiie  whole  substance  of  the  book, 
i.  e.  his  entire  former  one,  had  been  replied  to,  and  so  let  them 
examine  both  sides  if  they  choose;  a  course  very  different  IVom 
that  of  us  Episcopal iatts,  who  printed  the  ichole  controver.-^y  in 
one  volume :  he  merely  gives  the  title  of  the  volume  on  p.  27, 
and  that  only  to  say  that  he  uses  that  volume  for  the  Tract  "  Epis- 
copacy tested  by  Scripture  ;"  and  on  p.  28  he  refers,  for  but  a  sin- 


ADDENDrM.  277 

gle  point,  to  Bishop  Onderdonk's  Answer  to  his  first  Review  ; 
which  may  well  leave  his  readers,  "  especially  the  young,"  under 
tiie  impression  that  this  answer  went  no  lartiier  than  the  colunmg 
ol'a  religions  magazine,  fugitive  and  ephemeral,  whereas,  it  is  part 
ol'a  stereolyped  volume,  permanent  and  constantly  accessible.  A 
provoking  silence,  alter  the  open  and  manly  impartiality  adopted 
on  the  episcopalian  siile  ! — 2.  Mr.  Barnes,  in  his  late  book,  repeats, 
at  least  three  time?,  the  assertion,  made  in  his  former  essays,  that 
the  Tract,  "Episcopacy  Tested,"  Ac,  contains  all  that  can  he 
adduced  from  scripture  in  behalf  of  Episcopacy  ;  (pp.  iv.  40,  111.) 
whereas  Bishop  Onderdonk  had  corrected  this  mistake  on  page 
175  of  the  Volume,  enumerating  there  seven  scriptural  arguments 
not  mentioned  in  the  Tract ;  ;  and  the  Bishop  adds  yet  an  eighth 
in  the  '•  Dissertation  on  the  False  Apostles,"  which  concludes  that 
volume.  Now  this  is  positively  unfair.  Mr.  B's  readers,  such  of 
them  as  look  no  farther,  and  believe  tliat  he  has  refuted  the 
Tract,  will  believe  also  that  he  has  overturned  the  whole  scriptural 
defence  of  Episcopacy  !  what  a  Hercules  !  Nor  is  it  decorous  to 
Bishop  O.,  tlius  to  toss  aside  his  friendly  correction  of  an  error  in 
a  point  of  fact. — 3.  Mr.  Barnes  had  said,  in  his  first  book,  of  the 
passages,  "  obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you,"  "  remem- 
ber them  which  have  the  rule  over  you,"  that  ''  no  one  would 
pretend  that  Bishops  are  relerred  to ;"  this  mistake  of  fact 
Bishop  O.  corrected  on  p.  185  of  the  Volume,  reminding 
Mr.  B.,  tliat  liimself  (Bishop  O.)  had  in  the  conclusion  of  the 
Tract,  referred  them  to  "  the  Episcopal  ministry ;"  yet  Mr. 
B.  in  his  late  work  repeats  the  assertion,  "  that  Bishops  are  liere 
referred  to,  no  one  will  pretend."  (p.  223.)  The  well  known 
amiable  character  of  Mr.  B.  is  security  that  he  meant  no  disre- 
spect to  the  Bishop  ;  yet  it  has  so  much  of  that  appearance  that 
readers  wlio  are  not  acquainted  with  Mr.  B.  may  give  it  that  con- 
struction. Towards  the  argument  concerning  Episcopacy,  it  is 
manifestly  unjust. — 3.  Tliough  Mr.  Barnes  is  so  strenuous,  in 
both  his  books,  against  using  the  Fathers  in  this  controversy,  he 
yet,  on  p.  115  of  his  recent  one,  constructs  one  of  his  arguments 
on  the  assertion  that  "John  passed  a  large  part  of  his  long  life" 
at  Ephesu.s.  Now,  whence  got  he  this  information?  nowhere 
but  from  the  very  class  of  writings  he  so  sternly  condenms.  A 
rather  ludicrous  example,  of  which  there  are  not  a  few,  of  being 
unconsciously  perhaps,  "  on  the  fence"  of  the  patristic  field  ? 

Such  would  be  the  almost  only  new  topics  for  a  reply  to  Mr 
Barnes'  second  work  on  Episcopacy ;  the  other  points  generally 
ht'ing  answered  already.  And  it  is  well  tiiat  no  new  reply  has 
b''en  made;  for  to  have  dwelt  on  such  matters  sufllciently  at 
length  lor  a  volume  or  a  pamphlet,  would  very  certainly  have 
called  forth  unpleasant  remarks,  and  might  have  changed  the 
controversy  from  an  amicable  to  a  bitter  one.  Video. 

October  31st,  1843. 


fw 


.oq.M^vrf.'^lliTY 

f^fK    000499  538    7 


lll'llh 


!il  llllllllllll 


I 

M 


1  lii 


11-' ' 


ji!' 

i 

,|fc|||!|!!!''lii: 


